Political Crossfire Forums

[Vulcidian]

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.

Why can't American citizens have nuclear weapons? Or Chemical or Biological weapons? Why can't we have bombs and RPG's and anti-tank weapons?

Isn't that protected under the second amendment?

Unless "A well regulated militia " means we shouldn't have them. In which case the state or federal government can tell you all you can use for combat are wooden sticks, and that wouldn't be unconstitutional. [/b]

[micfranklin]

Because nuclear weapons are not used to defend, but moreso to destroy, hence the nickname "weapons of mass destruction." Besides, it'd be a waste to defend your house with a nuke, only to end up blowing up the criminal and everything within 50 miles of you :?

[Vulcidian]

Nuclear weapons are very defensive. That's what the whole Cold War was about. Nuclear deterrence.

Good point though. It's not very practical!

[private_citizen]

To bear arms mean to keep arms to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your fellow citizens.

In the time of our forefathers, there was no Anthrax, nor were there atom-splitting bombs. (Thank GOD)

They wanted you to be able to spare your life from an intruder, to keep your home safe from invasion and to keep your country safe and not succumb against your will.

[perdidochas]

Vulcidian wrote: 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.

Why can't American citizens have nuclear weapons? Or Chemical or Biological weapons? Why can't we have bombs and RPG's and anti-tank weapons?

Isn't that protected under the second amendment?

Unless "A well regulated militia " means we shouldn't have them. In which case the state or federal government can tell you all you can use for combat are wooden sticks, and that wouldn't be unconstitutional. [/b]


<yawn>Try a new argument.

[Vulcidian]

There's no need for a new argument. There is no argument. The Second Amendment is just too vague to apply to the modern world.

[JohnM]

Vulcidian wrote: There's no need for a new argument. There is no argument. The Second Amendment is just too vague to apply to the modern world.
So how about we use it as intended and apply it to guns?

[Wolverine]

Vulcidian wrote: 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.

Why can't American citizens have nuclear weapons? Or Chemical or Biological weapons? Why can't we have bombs and RPG's and anti-tank weapons?

Isn't that protected under the second amendment?

Unless "A well regulated militia " means we shouldn't have them. In which case the state or federal government can tell you all you can use for combat are wooden sticks, and that wouldn't be unconstitutional. [/b]
It is impossible for someone to store a WMD without endangering other lives, liberty and property. Simple.

"A well regulated militia" is seperate from the people rights.

Explained here (-Wolverine-).
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=30161&st=140

[mathurin]

Vulcidian wrote: There's no need for a new argument. There is no argument. The Second Amendment is just too vague to apply to the modern world.

not when you use a brain and a moderate knowledge of history

a militia is for local protection, perhaps more in case of invasion, nothing more

nukes are not a defensive weapon, they are a strategic weapon, a detterent, but nothing anybody would use on their own soil
this is a very old argument that has been shot down a thousand times since i have been here, it gets annoying. come up with some decent arguments or stop wasting our time

[Vulcidian]

You people are using your own definitions and opinions. I'm just telling you how the words in the amendment can be interpreted. This is nothing logically wrong with my argument. You just don't like it.

[mathurin]

so how about some actual debate, you presented an opinion, we rebutted, either you just dont get the point or you arent here for debate


in short rebuttal, nukes are not defensive weapons, they are strategic, they are not for home soil use and so militias have no use for them

do you disagree? go ahead and the debate will go on, otherwise find another justification or subject


its not that we dont like it, we just find it juvenile and irritating, you are at an early stage of the gun debate, soon you will learn

[Blinky]

private_citizen wrote: To bear arms mean to keep arms to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your fellow citizens.

In the time of our forefathers, there was no Anthrax, nor were there atom-splitting bombs. (Thank GOD)

They wanted you to be able to spare your life from an intruder, to keep your home safe from invasion and to keep your country safe and not succumb against your will.

You're right about anthrax and atom bombs - single shot muskets and pistols were the weapons of the day.
If what you say is true, then the second amendment should only cover these guns, not M16s, AKs or any other modern weaponry.

[Wolverine]

Vulcidian wrote: You people are using your own definitions and opinions. I'm just telling you how the words in the amendment can be interpreted. This is nothing logically wrong with my argument. You just don't like it.
... and I am pointing out the proper way to interpret it that is consistent with other Amendments.

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: private_citizen wrote: To bear arms mean to keep arms to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your fellow citizens.

In the time of our forefathers, there was no Anthrax, nor were there atom-splitting bombs. (Thank GOD)

They wanted you to be able to spare your life from an intruder, to keep your home safe from invasion and to keep your country safe and not succumb against your will.

You're right about anthrax and atom bombs - single shot muskets and pistols were the weapons of the day.
If what you say is true, then the second amendment should only cover these guns, not M16s, AKs or any other modern weaponry.

sure, then freedom of press only covers handcranked printing
freedom of speech only covers actual speech, no speakers or amplification systems allowed
religion doesnt cover anything after 1790, including variations on a theme

the police dont have to get a warrant to seach your computer via software programs
newly made punishments can be cruel and unusual, that rule only applies to ones current to 1790, since electric shock was not viable at the time, it is now legal to be used as a punishment


you really dont want to start with that, its a bad idea, you cant just pick and choose among the rights you like, it sets a dangerous precedent, for others might not like other rights and decide to eradicate them as well

[Vulcidian]

That's right, we have to reinterpret the constitution so it makes sense in the modern world

Therefore, we could have nukes. Unless the government made laws saying we could not, because the government is allowed to make laws as to saying what kind of weapons militias can have.

This does not protect your right to have a gun. It protects your right to have whatever weapons the government says you can have.

I am not in the early stage of the weapons debate. You people have allowed your bias to influence your judgement and have taken the text right before your eyes for granted.

You can shoot a neighbor on his property from yours. You can damage his property with guns from your property. That is the same in principle with a nuke. Nukes just do more damage. My judgement is sound in principle, you just don't want Nukes because people realize having Nukes are crazy, and thus your argument to bear arms is crazy.

So, if we go literally here. You can have any weapon you want, as long as the government says it is ok. But if the government says you cannot have the weapon, you have no right to object because your militia is being regulated.

You have invented this moderation so you can have your cake and eat it too. It is in no way constitutional. If you want to amend the constutition saying congress can't take away the right to have specific forms of arms, by all means lobby to do so. But I believe you an incorrect to suggest that the constitution currently justifies your thesis.

[mathurin]

Vulcidian wrote: That's right, we have to reinterpret the constitution so it makes sense in the modern world

Therefore, we could have nukes. Unless the government made laws saying we could not, because the government is allowed to make laws as to saying what kind of weapons militias can have.

This does not protect your right to have a gun. It protects your right to have whatever weapons the government says you can have.

funny, i thought that was exactly what it would have been without the 2nd amendment, which makes a strange case for why there is a 2nd, maybe thye just had an extra place on the page?



Vulcidian wrote:
I am not in the early stage of the weapons debate. You people have allowed your bias to influence your judgement and have taken the text right before your eyes for granted.

you are, you just dont think you are yet, dont worry, you will see, i dont know a single person who didnt come into this website with amateurish ideas about the gun control debate, on both sides, even myself
you will learn if you stay long enough


Vulcidian wrote:
You can shoot a neighbor on his property from yours. You can damage his property with guns from your property. That is the same in principle with a nuke. Nukes just do more damage. My judgement is sound in principle, you just don't want Nukes because people realize having Nukes are crazy, and thus your argument to bear arms is crazy.


nukes do not damage

they annihilate
they vaporize

the comparison is not valid
they are a seperate weapon, which, if i am not mistaken, is actually a forbidden weapon of war, similar to chemical weapons and the like, sure america has them, but we cant use them

Vulcidian wrote:
So, if we go literally here. You can have any weapon you want, as long as the government says it is ok. But if the government says you cannot have the weapon, you have no right to object because your militia is being regulated.


which again, negates the purpose of having a second, this is like stating that your speech is protected so long as the government allows it, it doesnt work

that said there are limits to all rights, yours is not one
Vulcidian wrote:
You have invented this moderation so you can have your cake and eat it too. It is in no way constitutional. If you want to amend the constutition saying congress can't take away the right to have specific forms of arms, by all means lobby to do so. But I believe you an incorrect to suggest that the constitution currently justifies your thesis.
if you want to amend the constitution to justify disarming america, then do so, but creating laws trying to skirt it is a bad idea, and sets a dangerous precedent

so again, lets go ahead with your precedent
you dont have free speech, only speech which the gov says you can have
you dont have free press, only press the gov specifies
you dont have the right to be secure in your property unless the gov says you do

you dont want to put this in the legal code, you really dont want to know where it will lead, lawyers excel at pulling the law like so much taffy, which is why the constitution is there


*sigh*
if only the founding fathers could have been alittle more clairvoyant and written the 2nd in a more obvious manner

if you wish to hear it i will tell you where the line is commonly drawn, and the real reason for the 2nd amendment, but not tonight, it is late and i have school tommorrow, as well as a post by blinky to read and reply to

[Blinky]

mathurin wrote: Blinky wrote: private_citizen wrote: To bear arms mean to keep arms to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your fellow citizens.

In the time of our forefathers, there was no Anthrax, nor were there atom-splitting bombs. (Thank GOD)

They wanted you to be able to spare your life from an intruder, to keep your home safe from invasion and to keep your country safe and not succumb against your will.

You're right about anthrax and atom bombs - single shot muskets and pistols were the weapons of the day.
If what you say is true, then the second amendment should only cover these guns, not M16s, AKs or any other modern weaponry.

sure, then freedom of press only covers handcranked printing
freedom of speech only covers actual speech, no speakers or amplification systems allowed
religion doesnt cover anything after 1790, including variations on a theme

the police dont have to get a warrant to seach your computer via software programs
newly made punishments can be cruel and unusual, that rule only applies to ones current to 1790, since electric shock was not viable at the time, it is now legal to be used as a punishment


you really dont want to start with that, its a bad idea, you cant just pick and choose among the rights you like, it sets a dangerous precedent, for others might not like other rights and decide to eradicate them as well

I agree. And since the second amendment makes no specific reference to strategic as opposed to defensive weapons, your justification for not allowing nuclear arms is what?

[mathurin]

to be short, since it is late and i really need to sleep

it starts with a history lesson
the colonist had just thrown out a poweful centralized government that had become oppressive, being paranoid they set up the articles of confederation, an extremely powerless government, it soon was falling to pieces, the states decided to amend it, but the group sent to amend it decided to start over, making a federal type government which we are currently under, when they took it back to the states the reaction was kind of like this "WHAT, are you crazy, we just sent you to repair the gov, not remake a new one, we just threw off a strong centralized government that had turned oppressive, why would we create a new one?!?!"
so a limit to the power of the new gov was created in the bill of rights, specifically forbiding many things which the gov could not oppress

when read carefully they are prerequisites for rebellion

freedom of information, without which nobody would know such oppression is occuring
right to arms, obvious, to rebel you need weaons, we have seen plenty of "rock rebellions" on TV
and down the line to what are basically protections of subversion and ensuring that the judiciary cannot become a tool of oppression by requiring jury trials


now that we have a history lesson, we understand that the 2nd was made to protect our ability to rebel
so, the 2nd garuntees what arms we would need to overthrow the government

what are those?? where to draw the line?
that is a very good question and everyone has a different answer, if you want to discuss it then ask, i will be happy to, but suffice to say for now, i can assure you that i have met nobody who really believes we need nukes to overthrow the gov

nukes are strategic weapons, we dont need them to overthrow the gov, we dont need them to defend the country, thus they are not a militia weapon

thanks for asking blinky, i forgot i hadnt given the whole story

[Blinky]

mathurin wrote: to be short, since it is late and i really need to sleep

it starts with a history lesson
the colonist had just thrown out a poweful centralized government that had become oppressive, being paranoid they set up the articles of confederation, an extremely powerless government, it soon was falling to pieces, the states decided to amend it, but the group sent to amend it decided to start over, making a federal type government which we are currently under, when they took it back to the states the reaction was kind of like this "WHAT, are you crazy, we just sent you to repair the gov, not remake a new one, we just threw off a strong centralized government that had turned oppressive, why would we create a new one?!?!"
so a limit to the power of the new gov was created in the bill of rights, specifically forbiding many things which the gov could not oppress

when read carefully they are prerequisites for rebellion

freedom of information, without which nobody would know such oppression is occuring
right to arms, obvious, to rebel you need weaons, we have seen plenty of "rock rebellions" on TV
and down the line to what are basically protections of subversion and ensuring that the judiciary cannot become a tool of oppression by requiring jury trials


now that we have a history lesson, we understand that the 2nd was made to protect our ability to rebel
so, the 2nd garuntees what arms we would need to overthrow the government

what are those?? where to draw the line?
that is a very good question and everyone has a different answer, if you want to discuss it then ask, i will be happy to, but suffice to say for now, i can assure you that i have met nobody who really believes we need nukes to overthrow the gov

nukes are strategic weapons, we dont need them to overthrow the gov, we dont need them to defend the country, thus they are not a militia weapon

thanks for asking blinky, i forgot i hadnt given the whole story

I will take you up on your offer. Where do you personally draw the line for weapons that can/should be allowed?

Also, if the 2nd amendment is to cover weapons necessary for the security of the state, surely gun owners cannot justify using their weapons for defence of their personal private property from domestic criminals?

[mathurin]

for tommorrow night, i have to get up in less than 6 hours, but i will be back