Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree81Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:13 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
and we refer to certain nations as 'nuclear armed'.

i doubt anyone is actually carrying a nuclear weapon in their 'arms' though.

perhaps the way certain words are used changes over time.
The W54 nuclear warhead weighed around 50 lbs. It's weird to think that you or I could indeed carry in our arms a nuclear warhead, or maybe in a backpack.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:15 PM   #82
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
What are you talking about?
YOU said "arms" was strictly a "military term" and did NOT include firearms "used to hunt deer." Did you not?
Have to any doubt whatsoever that militia units in the 18th and 19th century were NOT primarily armed with their own personal firearms?
Would you care to refute or reasonably dispute my statement?

Indeed "arms" refers to non crew served weapons, those weapons CARRIED or BORNE (as in to bear arms) by the ordinary infantryman. In the case of the 18th and 19th century infantry that would include muskets, rifles, bayonets, swords, pikes and even crude hand grenades. Correct?

So, you ARE including fully automatic rifles, sub machine guns and pistols BECAUSE they "can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes."
AGREED?

I was an infantryman in the Marine Corps in 1968. Guess what "arms" WE "carried in our arms for military purposes?" In addition to semi automatic and fully automatic rifles they included fragmentation hand grenades, various military grade explosives, M-79 grenade launchers, anti personal mines such as the Claymore and the M72 LAW rocket launcher. I was trained to use all of those "arms" as a Marine rifleman and i could indeed carry them and none were crew served.

So, according to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment i should be allowed to own all of those weapons. I mean, what the fuck, if a fully automatic rifle is permitted by the 2nd Amendment why not?
And bazookas. I always wanted a bazooka.
Thanks from imaginethat
RNG is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:18 PM   #83
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The W54 nuclear warhead weighed around 50 lbs. It's weird to think that you or I could indeed carry in our arms a nuclear warhead, or maybe in a backpack.
but would the NRA defend your right to do so?

hell, they probably would.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:21 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Post #77 was directed at Jimgorn.

Well why not? IF......note I said IF... a fully automatic rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it is a non crew served infantry weapon then so is the M-79 grenade launcher.
Considering the strong argument, that the Second Amendment follows the First to show how seriously the People must take their duty to preserve and protect Liberty, what's the argument to justify limiting civilians to the possession of M-79s, tops?
Thanks from Hollywood
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:22 PM   #85
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And bazookas. I always wanted a bazooka.
Thus the ubiquity of RPGs. Everyone wants a bazooka.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 06:26 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
but would the NRA defend your right to do so?

hell, they probably would.
Of course they would, and why not?

If the militia is to pose any credible deterrent to a rogue central government, it's going to need some serious weaponry, right?



















partly tongue in cheek
Thanks from Hollywood
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 07:50 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Of course they would, and why not?

If the militia is to pose any credible deterrent to a rogue central government, it's going to need some serious weaponry, right?



partly tongue in cheek
I would expect that in an honest and rational discussion that anti-gunners not bring really silly arguments to the table.

The pro - gun forces already "compromised" on bazookas. They come under the heading of destructive devices. Hand grenades, mortars, etc. are already illegal.

To make it simple, if your local police can obtain a certain weapon, it should be available to the general public. Tanks, bazookas, hand grenades, etc. if outlawed for local LEOs would still be available to the National Guard.

Thought You Should Know - Paramilitarism in American Police 2

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 08:25 PM   #88
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Right to Left, This issue has nothing to do with need. We surpassed/moved that goalpost years ago. This issue is about ONE thing and ONE thing only: POWER.

I had this discussion with one of the RWs a couple of weeks ago and here's the summary. I'm paraphrasing.
I said: How much do you need? (similar to your question).
He said (it's always a HE): We need enough to secure this nation and it's individuals.
I said: Okay, we've got the strongest military (militia) in the world. We the people can keep/purchase and bear as many "arms" as we want. AND no one is taking those "arms" away from us. So, again.....how much is enough?
We the people have followed the 2nd amendment TO THE LETTER, so what more do we "need". Can't we "cap" it? Put a lid on it?

To repeat: This has nothing to do with need--we have ALL WE NEED. The 2nd amendment's recipe's main ingredient is POWER. Add several cups of politics. A heaping tablespoon of FEAR. Stir with an NRA spoon and voila.......you've got assault weapons, silencers, and military strength in the hands of people like whos-its in Vegas.
Guns have changed since the 2nd Amendment was written so why haven't our laws changed--our amendment?? Maybe the founders weren't all that smart after all. OMG--did I just post that statement??? I'll be tarred and feather.

Disarm the police, military and all government officials on US soil. Then we can talk.

Guns have changed, so has the government. Back then the people had access to the same arms as the state. Not so much any more. We should really fix that.
Sabcat is online now  
Old October 8th, 2017, 08:50 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
What are you talking about?
YOU said "arms" was strictly a "military term" and did NOT include firearms "used to hunt deer." Did you not?
Again...you use the leftist tool of reading shit into something that is not there...I did not say Arms was STRICTLY a military term... I said it was a military term at the time of the drafting of the Constitution...One did not "bear arms against a rabbit"..Unless the rabbit was 6 feet tall and a carnivore.....the language did not use it that way THEN....If the term "bear arms" was used it was used primarily (not always) in a military context...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Have to any doubt whatsoever that militia units in the 18th and 19th century were NOT primarily armed with their own personal firearms?
Would you care to refute or reasonably dispute my statement?
This statement makes no sense...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Indeed "arms" refers to non crew served weapons, those weapons CARRIED or BORNE (as in to bear arms) by the ordinary infantryman. In the case of the 18th and 19th century infantry that would include muskets, rifles, bayonets, swords, pikes and even crude hand grenades. Correct?
Correct, but the Framers used "arms" and "weapons" interchangeably


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
So, you ARE including fully automatic rifles, sub machine guns and pistols BECAUSE they "can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes."
AGREED?
Agreed


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
I was an infantryman in the Marine Corps in 1968. Guess what "arms" WE "carried in our arms for military purposes?" In addition to semi automatic and fully automatic rifles they included fragmentation hand grenades, various military grade explosives, M-79 grenade launchers, anti personal mines such as the Claymore and the M72 LAW rocket launcher. I was trained to use all of those "arms" as a Marine rifleman and i could indeed carry them and none were crew served.
So was I...I carried an M-79 and a M1911 .45......So what???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
So, according to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment i should be allowed to own all of those weapons. I mean, what the fuck, if a fully automatic rifle is permitted by the 2nd Amendment why not?
I can't find any definition as to what limits the Framers put on the term "Arms"....can you??..... If not stop trying to be a wiseass....
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 09:28 PM   #90
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 411
R #82 & it #85

Since before our 3rd Millennium nuclear weapons have been called "nuclear ARMS", even if they are not always carried in human hands and arms *.
- DOES this mean our Second Amendment (2A) includes them in a citizen's right to "keep & bear arms"?

- SHOULD it?

Many seek the logical refuge of original intent to address such questions.

The problem is, EVEN if we could know for certain what the Founders mean by "arms" we also know for certain they could not have know what we mean by "nuclear" ("nucular" if you prefer); for Niels Bohr hadn't been born yet.

So whether WMD should be included as protected private property for private citizens remains a matter of speculation / opinion.

Perhaps that fact nixes the "original intent" approach to WMD specifically.
If so, that would seem to leave it to the perhaps more germane "what is best for U.S. in the 3rd millennium" test.

You tell me. Should a suicidal / homicidal / genocidal manic depressive be guaranteed by U.S. federal law to be allowed to own Minuteman missiles? Are they not "nuclear arms"?

* I've read that one Minuteman ICBM (about 10 stories tall in the silo) has more explosive power aboard than all the munitions expended in WWII by all sides, including the nukes dropped on Japan.
titan is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bumpstock, gambit, good, idea, nra, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A good idea, but ... ericthered World History 2 April 15th, 2016 12:15 PM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 01:30 AM
A good idea? roastpork Education 0 April 9th, 2014 11:56 AM
Anybody have any idea how this might work... Dude111 Science and Technology 6 January 31st, 2010 12:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.