Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

We aren't talking about rocket launchers. We're talking about firearms.

Grenade launchers are legal and unregulated.

 

Do you know the names of other weapons?

 

No, the 2A is about arms.
It's not limited to firearms. That is a subsection of arms.

 

~ In the USA the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to discourage a totalitarian repressive government — not to hunt, target shoot or join a gun club. This right is second only to the right of free speech.
2nd Amendment "gun crazy" American citizens see the importance and want to retain all rights as intended. Today more of us also see the reason.

~•~
​

 

Ok, outlaw rocket launchers. No one gives a ****. This is a stupid argument you're making...lol

 

Who brought up rocket launchers, besides you?

But since you brought it up, you are ok with infringement of it?

See, everyone has their line in the sand on what they want infringed. But most every person is for some infringements. As you just told us you are.

 

You're the one who brought up rocket launchers.

 

All true. Restrictions against artillery, nukes and chemical agents are unconstitutional. BUT if we held a constitutional convention today (or at any point since these things were invented), the required supermajority support to amend the constitution to ban them would easily, quickly and obviously be attained. And WE SHOULD DO THAT. But we won't, because it will re-enforce in everyone's mind that the govt doesn't have the constitutional authority to tell us 'you can't have that' unless we vote for that to happen. Also, because some asshat would undoubtedly toss 'handguns' and 'weed' into the mix and make a huge mess of it...

 

...

 

A LAW is a ******n rocket launcher, dude...lol

 

This is what the LAW fires

That's, a rocket...lol

 

I am not so sure.
As there are many 2A supporters that have no problem with infringing on many arms.
Even one that responded to the same post of mine you did has no problem infringing on LAW.

 

Yes.
And it's infringed to usage.

 

you apparently are ignorant of American gun laws. Until you actually understand what you are debating, its a waste of time. You don't know what people with Domestic abuse records are unable to legally own guns and your description of an AR 15 is so childishly comical I cannot take your arguments seriously. If civilian police use AR 15s in large numbers (they do) that destroys your silly comparison with "rocket cars"

 

you don't school anyone on guns. Your silly comment about AR 15s being unsuitable is destroyed by the fact that they are commonly used by civilian law enforcement and are commonly used for target shooting and hunting. So you clearly demonstrate you haven't a clue about firearms/ Your default position is that if your nanny state says you cannot own a certain type of weapon, you believe and fluff that nanny state and assume it is right. It's not.

 

true, the Oregon supreme court-using the Oregon second amendment-struck down a ban on automatic ("switchblade") knives and a NY Court struck down a ban on the overrated but theatrically amusing Okinawan martial arts weapon commonly called "nunchucks"

 

You're not so sure about ....what?

It seems we're in agreement that both progunners and antigunners are likely to agree on banning things like rocket launchers... right?

That's because, as I said, no one (well, very few) view heavy artillery as a weapon that's useful or necessary for self defense and they would be far more willing to support banning them than they would things like rifles and pistols. We could make things like crew served weapons, nukes, bio/chem weapons illegal both democratically and constitutionally -ie legitimately instead of by bureaucratic fiat ...but it would paint a big neon 'notice!' sign on how we've been 'regulating' things like weed and guns unconstitutionally for a long time. In fact, weed and machine guns were both restricted via the same BS catch 22 'tax stamp' regulations, by the same guy and at the same time (or, within a couple years of eachother) in order to create the original precedent for the regulatory practices we use to federally restrict them both today.

 

The natural right of self defense was the underlying motivation (the right that is not dependent upon the constitution as the Cruikshank court noted) behind the creation of the second amendment. Weapons designed to attack buildings, ships, airplanes or areas, such as rockets, artillery, claymore mines, or bombs, are not useful for civilian self defense and thus are outside the protection of the second amendment. However, federal laws banning such things do raise tenth amendment issues

 

Your constitutional amendment to end all infringements on all arms.
Maybe that's not what you were suggesting?

I think most would be in agreement with large scale weapons being infringed.

Everyone has their line in the sand. The hot topic of it all is where does the line get drawn.

The 2A is not about self defense, it's to keep a populace ready for a well regulated militia.

 

My proposal was an amendment to ban nukes, chemical weapons and artillery.

The purpose of the militia is self defense. Well, communal defense, but that precedentially is already assumed, given you can claim and win self defense even if ur protecting someone else.

 

You'd be surprised how much self-defense on nuclear hand grenade provides.

 

What the Second Amendment Says
"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."

Necessary for a 'free State'.

IMO. all other reasons are personal opinions for or against certain infringements. IE, to justify a line in the sand.

But, per the 2A, nothing at all should be infringed.

 

Security and freedom both require self defense, both at the 'state' level and the individual level.

 

True, but the 2A is explicit. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

IMO. any interpretations, which there are many, are justification for one's personal beliefs.

Per the strict interpretation, no arms shall be infringed. Necessary for a free State.

 

since you want to play word games-find the language in Article One Section Eight that empowers the federal government to regulate the small arms of private citizens