Question for fellow Second Amendment supporters

[TastySuckToy]

"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."

The writers of the Second Amendment specifically used the terms 'arms', knowing full well that even in their time, individuals and groups could develop and obtain weapons of mass destruction. Anything ranging from swords, to explosives, guns, fire, even privateer warships with enough firepower to level entire coastal cities.

The question being, do you think there is ever any limit to the type of weaponry individuals can own?

For example, assuming the Second Amendement went entirely unchallenged, would it therefore be reasonable to allow any number of individuals to own something like tactical nuclear weapons, or biological weapons?

Fire by definition is a weapon of mass destruction, but we do have an assortment of tools and tactics to fight it, even at large scale.

However, something like a nuclear detonation that could kill anywhere from thousands to millions in mere seconds cannot be dealt with in any way other than simply attempted cleanup after the fact.

What are your thoughts?

Is the Second Amendment absolute, or did the writers of it at the time simply not comprehend the possibility that technology could advance so far that an individual could kill hundreds of thousands, even millions in mere seconds? Possibly even more, if something like biological weaponry is deployed and the mass death that could result from that.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I don't think the Founding Fathers could have predicted how far technology has progressed. "The right to bear arms", in my opinion extends to conventional weapons such as guns, rifles and even rocket/grenade launchers and flamethrowers. However, taken at face value, it could be argued that the only limit to what weapons you can own are how deep your pockets are and whether you're qualified to use them.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I strongly suspect that the Quill-N-Parchment guys were smarter than most modern people give them credit for. They saw fit to give you the First Amendment for this-here pR0n site, after all. They'd want Wat to have an MG42.

 

[Saint_Ann]

It's intentionally vague. '...to the security of a free state...' is the crux of the biscuit- whatever tools necessary to accomplish that goal. Imho.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The writers of the Second Amendment specifically used the terms 'arms', knowing full well that even in their time, individuals and groups could develop and obtain weapons of mass destruction. Anything ranging from swords, to explosives, guns, fire, even privateer warships with enough firepower to level entire coastal cities.

The question being, do you think there is ever any limit to the type of weaponry individuals can own?

For example, assuming the Second Amendement went entirely unchallenged, would it therefore be reasonable to allow any number of individuals to own something like tactical nuclear weapons, or biological weapons?

Fire by definition is a weapon of mass destruction, but we do have an assortment of tools and tactics to fight it, even at large scale.

However, something like a nuclear detonation that could kill anywhere from thousands to millions in mere seconds cannot be dealt with in any way other than simply attempted cleanup after the fact.

What are your thoughts?

Is the Second Amendment absolute, or did the writers of it at the time simply not comprehend the possibility that technology could advance so far that an individual could kill hundreds of thousands, even millions in mere seconds? Possibly even more, if something like biological weaponry is deployed and the mass death that could result from that.

Read the Heller decision. Arms “in common use” are protected. That includes the most popular rifle in America and excludes things you asked about such as biological and nuclear weapons.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[Rebel5soul]

I don't think the Founding Fathers could have predicted how far technology has progressed. "The right to bear arms", in my opinion extends to conventional weapons such as guns, rifles and even rocket/grenade launchers and flamethrowers. However, taken at face value, it could be argued that the only limit to what weapons you can own are how deep your pockets are and whether you're qualified to use them.

That is the point of contention. To 'bear' would seem to imply personal weapons of any sort to the exclusion of crew served weapons. (Although there are MANY crew served weapons out there in private hands. Hell, there's a fellow that shows up at the Big Sandy shoot with his fully functional M60A3 tank.) Also the fact that the 2nd is an individual right as opposed to a collective right would seem to further strengthen the notion of individual weapons as opposed to crew served.

Individual weapons would necessarily include fully automatic weapons.

 

[HisArpy]

That is the point of contention. To 'bear' would seem to imply personal weapons of any sort to the exclusion of crew served weapons. (Although there are MANY crew served weapons out there in private hands. Hell, there's a fellow that shows up at the Big Sandy shoot with his fully functional M60A3 tank.) Also the fact that the 2nd is an individual right as opposed to a collective right would seem to further strengthen the notion of individual weapons as opposed to crew served.

Individual weapons would necessarily include fully automatic weapons.

I disagree. Strongly.

The 2A says what it says, anything different from what it says is an interpretation and interpretations are based on personal biases and ignorance.

The Right isn't "unlimited" but the limit isn't the arms themselves, it's the ability to maintain ownership in a way that doesn't harm anyone accidentally/negligently. This is where I disagree with Bruen and its line of precedent as well as the "common use" test.

There is no reason I cannot own a cannon. There is no reason I cannot own a fully equipped fighter/bomber. There's no reason I cannot own a nuclear ICBM. The crux is whether I can do so in a manner which doesn't endanger anyone, anywhere.

If I cannot then I personally should not be able to possess such an arm.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't mean that those arms cannot be regulated as to the requirements of ownership. Note, this isn't "storage laws." It's whether that particular arm can be possessed in a manner which renders the arm safe until use. If it cannot, then the individual is responsible for not only the harm caused but the disposal of the arm in a safe manner.

This is how the law works in every other field from ownership of land, to medical, to business and even government. Arms should be treated no differently before the law.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Read the Heller decision. Arms “in common use” are protected. That includes the most popular rifle in America and excludes things you asked about such as biological and nuclear weapons.

Not to mention that the “excluded” things are already heavily regulated. Up to and including depleted uranium. So it’s a non-starter of an issue, IMO.

Remember kids. Without the Second Amendment, there wouldn’t be the First.

 

[RoryN]

The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated the weak excuse for the particular modern man who has masturbatory fantasies about guns due primarily to irrational fear of dark-skinned people and who, ironically, would not have the bravery to pull the trigger when necessary - even if a loved-one's life depended upon it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated the weak excuse for the particular modern man who has masturbatory fantasies about guns due primarily to irrational fear of dark-skinned people and who, ironically, would not have the bravery to pull the trigger when necessary - even if a loved-one's life depended upon it.

Apparently some fear orange skinned people as well.

 

[RoryN]

Apparently some fear orange skinned people as well.

Huh?

 

[Rightguide]

The writers of the Second Amendment specifically used the terms 'arms', knowing full well that even in their time, individuals and groups could develop and obtain weapons of mass destruction. Anything ranging from swords, to explosives, guns, fire, even privateer warships with enough firepower to level entire coastal cities.

The question being, do you think there is ever any limit to the type of weaponry individuals can own?

For example, assuming the Second Amendement went entirely unchallenged, would it therefore be reasonable to allow any number of individuals to own something like tactical nuclear weapons, or biological weapons?

Fire by definition is a weapon of mass destruction, but we do have an assortment of tools and tactics to fight it, even at large scale.

However, something like a nuclear detonation that could kill anywhere from thousands to millions in mere seconds cannot be dealt with in any way other than simply attempted cleanup after the fact.

What are your thoughts?

Is the Second Amendment absolute, or did the writers of it at the time simply not comprehend the possibility that technology could advance so far that an individual could kill hundreds of thousands, even millions in mere seconds? Possibly even more, if something like biological weaponry is deployed and the mass death that could result from that.

Read the Heller and Bruen SCOTUS decisions, They contain the legal scholarship you seek in great detail.

 

[Bray123]

They said 'bear arms', not possess.

If you can't bear it, you shouldn't have it. They also left off ammunition for a reason which has been studiously ignored.

 

[LLCox]

I went to the "worlds biggest flea market" in Hillsville Va. There was a guy sitting in a chair next to a Civil War M1836 12 lb. cannon. I'd have bought that sucker but had no way to get it home. Ii would have looked great sitting at the entrance to my property.

 

[Herkermer2]

They said 'bear arms', not possess.

If you can't bear it, you shouldn't have it. They also left off ammunition for a reason which has been studiously ignored.

It actually states “to keep and bear arms”

 

[Rightguide]

I don't think the Founding Fathers could have predicted how far technology has progressed. "The right to bear arms", in my opinion extends to conventional weapons such as guns, rifles and even rocket/grenade launchers and flamethrowers. However, taken at face value, it could be argued that the only limit to what weapons you can own are how deep your pockets are and whether you're qualified to use them.

Note that the framers left (through the Second Amendment) in the hands of the American people, the same small arms technology possessed by the King of England and his army. Storekeepers along the nation's trails and roads owned cannons as well.

 

[JuanVato]

2nd amendment says I can have full auto, but there are some hoops and supply rules that I have to comply with. That inventory has dropped since a 1986 peak.

Mass shootings are aided by high capacity magazines. I wonder if all guns remained legal as they are, but magazines over 10 rounds were taxed $1,000 a unit, possession without tax stamp is a felony, would that decrease overall supply after a certain date?

Like cigarettes.
They are legal, but taxed heavy reducing the number of smokers as we had 50 years ago.

I wonder if that is something we might see in the future.

 

[HisArpy]

2nd amendment says I can have full auto, but there are some hoops and supply rules that I have to comply with. That inventory has dropped since a 1986 peak.

Mass shootings are aided by high capacity magazines.
I wonder if a all guns remained legal as they are, but magazines over 10 rounds were taxed $1,000 a unit, possession without tax stamp is a felony, would that decrease overall supply after a certain date?

Like cigarettes.
They are legal, but taxed heavy reducing the number of smokers as we had 50 years ago.

So maybe we ought to restrict and tax ballots. Because while VOTING is a right, the ballots aren't mentioned at all...

 

[JuanVato]

So maybe we ought to restrict and tax ballots. Because while VOTING is a right, the ballots aren't mentioned at all...

24th amendment

 

[JohnEngelman]

I do not care what the overrated "Founding Fathers" thought about guns. They were intelligent and well educated for the time. They did not know what our conditions are now. I want gun ownership to be treated the way car ownership is treated. Gun owners should be required to get a license to own guns. They should be required to pass tests.

The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is an argument that should only appeal to criminals and terrorists.

 

[stxjimmy]

The writers of the Second Amendment specifically used the terms 'arms', knowing full well that even in their time, individuals and groups could develop and obtain weapons of mass destruction. Anything ranging from swords, to explosives, guns, fire, even privateer warships with enough firepower to level entire coastal cities.

The question being, do you think there is ever any limit to the type of weaponry individuals can own?

For example, assuming the Second Amendement went entirely unchallenged, would it therefore be reasonable to allow any number of individuals to own something like tactical nuclear weapons, or biological weapons?

Fire by definition is a weapon of mass destruction, but we do have an assortment of tools and tactics to fight it, even at large scale.

However, something like a nuclear detonation that could kill anywhere from thousands to millions in mere seconds cannot be dealt with in any way other than simply attempted cleanup after the fact.

What are your thoughts?

Is the Second Amendment absolute, or did the writers of it at the time simply not comprehend the possibility that technology could advance so far that an individual could kill hundreds of thousands, even millions in mere seconds? Possibly even more, if something like biological weaponry is deployed and the mass death that could result from that.

Why stop at nuclear weapons, when everyone will soon be able to buy their own satellite and space laser courtesy of musk?

 

[HisArpy]

24th amendment

Hokay fine... no tax. Make 'em BUY their ballot cards instead.

 

[MiaBabe23]

OP is asking about TNWs……
I recommend having a look at the logic of the NPT - while of course the international system is a different context, the lessons are actually kinda interesting applied to domestic policy too
Would you have such questions if you weren’t worried by what your (perceived) enemy might carry? Might this highlight the benefits of limiting rather than expanding the application of the 2nd?

 

[Rightguide]

I do not care what the overrated "Founding Fathers" thought about guns. They were intelligent and well educated for the time. They did not know what our conditions are now. I want gun ownership to be treated the way car ownership is treated. Gun owners should be required to get a license to own guns. They should be required to pass tests.

The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is an argument that should only appeal to criminals and terrorists.

You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. The object of the Second Amendment is to keep the people writ large stronger than an oppressive-minded government.