The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

And you got it. His is not different and he can back it up if he wants.

So.

Anyhow, seems most dictionaries define it similarly or paraphrase the same thing—that is if'n one can read.

Your definition differs greatly from his. Yours includes nuclear weapons. His would seem to be limited to smaller guns.

[cosmo20002]

Anyone else agree with BEP that the 2nd Am guarantees a private right to nuclear weapons?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Your definition differs greatly from his. Yours includes nuclear weapons. His would seem to be limited to smaller guns.

Nope.

BTW you're invited to dinner over at my place. RSVP via PM.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Anyone else agree with BEP that the 2nd Am guarantees a private right to nuclear weapons?

Does the right to free speech not being infringed include written publications, art, and porn?


Works both ways bud. But it's not my personal definition...it's just a definition that's in the dictionary.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Anyone else agree with BEP that the 2nd Am guarantees a private right to nuclear weapons?

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Does the right to free speech not being infringed include written publications, art, and porn?


Works both ways bud. But it's not my personal definition...it's just a definition that's in the dictionary.

I don't know what all that is supposed to mean.

I'm asking you think--Does the 2nd Am guarantee a personal, private right to nuclear weapons?

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Anyone else agree with BEP that the 2nd Am guarantees a private right to nuclear weapons?

well, jeez.. I am humbled -- you do not follow my every post

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what all that is supposed to mean.

Figures

I'm asking you think--Does the 2nd Am guarantee a personal, private right to nuclear weapons?

I don't see how it is written that it necessarily denies them. Only thing I can see is that having them, even without fighting the govt, is not necessarily safe for keeping...in there it might not be that they can personally be born but have access.

A cannon on my front porch is a given though. Bombs from planes too. This is why we should be a citizen militia with a smaller standing army though. This way the people can have access to those nukes if needed, while keeping them safe otherwise.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Just a matter of where they are kept.

But why do you need "group think", that doesn't make something right or true. As usual, you resort to collectivist thinking.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I don't see how it is written that it necessarily denies them. Only thing I can see is that having them, even without fighting the govt, is not necessarily safe for keeping...in there it might not be.

A cannon on my front porch is a given though. Bombs from planes too. This is why we should be a citizen militia with a smaller standing army though. This way the people can have access to those nukes if needed, while keeping them safe otherwise.

Geez, you're all over the place. Never mind.

I've been BEPped!

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Geez, you're all over the place. Never mind.

I've been BEPped!

No, you just can't process certain pov's is all. Not to mention your reading comprehension abilities in general.

Go back and read what I said about the Constitution pre-Bill of Rights and where the anti-Federalists were concerned about those powers. This checks those powers with the "militia" meaning the people. It was very popular back the for the people, as reflected in the statements by certain Framers, to distrust a large standing army. This is why a citizen militia would work as they have in Switzerland. Madison put out some numbers as to how large this standing army should be in response. The militia was to check those powers—not just be under the control of the Feds. Read the debates to get a better idea of what is meant by this amendment.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Just a matter of where they are kept.

You are a riot. A crazy, hypocritical riot. Of all the aspects of the 2nd Am that are up for reasonable debate due to the awkward wording, you focus on "keep."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You are a riot. A crazy, hypocritical riot. Of all the aspects of the 2nd Am that are up for reasonable debate due to the awkward wording, you focus on "keep."

'Cept I didn't just focus on "keep" throughout. It was just in that area. You can't read, as usual.
As if keep can carrying around a nuclear weapon easily. Geesh!

All you have to do is agree to disagree instead of relying on your usual logical fallacies because you can't defend your own stand.

[BucEyedPea]

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee the safeguard of liberty and prevent oppression of the people. Therefore people have to be armed with the weapons used by the military. This amendment was not intended for hunting, although that is allowed. It is intended for self-defense collectively from federal govt and for personal self defense.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No, you just can't process certain pov's is all. Not to mention your reading comprehension abilities in general.

Go back and read what I said about the Constitution pre-Bill of Rights and where the anti-Federalists were concerned about those powers. This checks those powers with the "militia" meaning the people. It was very popular back the for the people, as reflected in the statements by certain Framers, to distrust a large standing army. This is why a citizen militia would work as they have in Switzerland. Madison put out some numbers as to how large this standing army should be in response. The militia was to check those powers. Read the debates to get a better idea of what is meant by this amendment.

I ****ing asked like 5 times if you thought the 2nd Am guaranteed a private, personal right to a nuclear weapon and you dance around with all this stuff about militias and where the nuke is kept.

If I asked about a basic hangun, you would have said "Yes." When I ask about typically military-level weaponry, you start babbling. I get it--you're afraid to admit that there are ANY restictions allowed by the 2nd Am.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I ****ing asked like 5 times if you thought the 2nd Am guaranteed a private, personal right to a nuclear weapon and you dance around with all this stuff about militias and where the nuke is kept.

Nope. I did not. There's no mention of any adjective of "personal" or "private" just a "right to "bear" and "keep." You narrowed it down when the Framers didn't do that. Of course, it allows private and personal too. I explained how the nukes apply. You are incapable of understanding what I posted.

If I asked about a basic hangun, you would have said "Yes." When I ask about typically military-level weaponry, you start babbling. I get it--you're afraid to admit that there are ANY restictions allowed by the 2nd Am.

Nope. I didn't.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Just a matter of where they are kept.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

'Cept I didn't just focus on "keep" throughout.

OK

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

All you have to do is agree to disagree instead of relying on your usual logical fallacies because you can't defend your own stand.

Agree to disagree on what? My own stand? I asked you a straightforward question. You've responded with your typical bullshit.