The 2nd Admendment

[Truckman]

It is just a different upper, is it not?

I'll modify that...The barrel size is the same...The twist can vary......Ben

[Wannabe]

And for all of those who maintain that the 2nd was only written about muskets, let me introduce the Cookson Volitional repeater. It was invented in the 1750's and since the Constitution wasn't written until almost 3 decades later, the claim of it not covering semi auto rifles is invalid. Actually there are some dating back to the 1650's
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...-repeater.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4vjq6sW40

I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founding Fathers intended for the Citizens to have the same arms as the military. I can almost hear the liberal snowflakes hollering NO-NO-NO. We should be able to posess any arms that the military have If we can afford it. They did not restrict or specify which arms you could have. If you can afford to buy and maintain an A-1 Abrams tank then you can be armed with a tank. And for the weak kneed snowflakes, the 2nd Admen. has nothing to do with hunting. So now I will probably have to ignore 'what if--what if--what if'. The 2nd Admen. is also Non Negotiable.

[Fulltimer]

I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founding Fathers intended for the Citizens to have the same arms as the military. I can almost hear the liberal snowflakes hollering NO-NO-NO. We should be able to posess any arms that the military have If we can afford it. They did not restrict or specify which arms you could have. If you can afford to buy and maintain an A-1 Abrams tank then you can be armed with a tank. And for the weak kneed snowflakes, the 2nd Admen. has nothing to do with hunting. So now I will probably have to ignore 'what if--what if--what if'. The 2nd Admen. is also Non Negotiable.

Well, see that has been my argument with Wacojoe for it seems like an eternity. If restricting AR-15 type military arms is taking away the 2nd Amendment why is not allowing citizens to keep and bear grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, claymore mines, and large amounts of fertilizer and diesel explosives not also a violation of the 2nd and why is the NRA not having kittens at those restrictions?

[TxMusky]

Probably the safety of handling and storing those things is the main issue. Anybody can learn to safely operate a gun, having a grenade sitting around the living room and having a child pull the pin is a lot different than having a child touch an unloaded firearm. Sure they could knock it over and nothing but a scratch would be the extent of the damage done to the firearm, but it would not fire as it had no ammo. Not so easy to safe a hand grenade. Same goes for claymores and rocket launchers. Not to mention the ability to keep whackos from having that kind of destructive power. A semi auto gun is just another gun that fires a bullet when the trigger is pulled, that is all.

Plus the things you mentioned are also basically bombs, owning a bomb is already illegal.

[Fulltimer]

Probably the safety of handling and storing those things is the main issue. Anybody can learn to safely operate a gun, having a grenade sitting around the living room and having a child pull the pin is a lot different than having a child touch an unloaded firearm. Sure they could knock it over and nothing but a scratch would be the extent of the damage done to the firearm, but it would not fire as it had no ammo. Not so easy to safe a hand grenade. Same goes for claymores and rocket launchers. Not to mention the ability to keep whackos from having that kind of destructive power. A semi auto gun is just another gun that fires a bullet when the trigger is pulled, that is all.

Plus the things you mentioned are also basically bombs, owning a bomb is already illegal.

What does safety have to do with a RIGHT under the Constitution? I keep hearing from The NRA that all those children's deaths are simply the "Cost Of Freedom".

If any weapons can be restricted from civilian use without "breaking" the 2nd then the assault type weapons can as well.

The 2nd Amendment will still be alive and intact.

[Mike]

I believe the Founders intended for us to own the same weapons as the military as a safeguard against tyranny. I don't believe they could have guessed at the destructive power of today's weaponry or the 2nd might be a little different. The Founders were too smart to have intended citizen ownership of weapons of mass destruction, even though they would be needed to fight a tyrannical government.

That said, I could put a few nukes to good use if SCOTUS ever decides I'm entitled to own them.

[TxMusky]

That said, I could put a few nukes to good use if SCOTUS ever decides I'm entitled to own them.

Just let me know if I pissed you off, otherwise I will give you a hand with those.

[TxMusky]

I keep hearing from The NRA that all those children's deaths are simply the "Cost Of Freedom".

I'm gonna call BS on that one. You will need to show absolute proof that any of the NRA leadership said that.

[Wannabe]

Just let me know if I pissed you off, otherwise I will give you a hand with those.

Good (smart) response Tx. I'm with you.

[wacojoe]

I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founding Fathers intended for the Citizens to have the same arms as the military. I can almost hear the liberal snowflakes hollering NO-NO-NO. We should be able to posess any arms that the military have If we can afford it. They did not restrict or specify which arms you could have. If you can afford to buy and maintain an A-1 Abrams tank then you can be armed with a tank. And for the weak kneed snowflakes, the 2nd Admen. has nothing to do with hunting. So now I will probably have to ignore 'what if--what if--what if'. The 2nd Admen. is also Non Negotiable.

I guess the literalists/absolutists believe that the 1st A. allows us to yell “fire” in a theater too, but I swear I have never heard anyone actually make that argument, it is so absurd. It makes about as much sense as allowing people at the end of your wife’s runway with a man pad.

As the saying goes, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

[Fulltimer]

I guess the literalists/absolutists believe that the 1st A. allows us to yell “fire” in a theater too, but I swear I have never heard anyone actually make that argument, it is so absurd. It makes about as much sense as allowing people at the end of your wife’s runway with a man pad.

As the saying goes, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Do you believe the 2nd Amendment is not a suicide pact?

[wacojoe]

Do you believe the 2nd Amendment is not a suicide pact?

Now that is truly absurd.

[TxMusky]

Now that is truly absurd.

Did you expect any less? When it gets to the point in a discussion, where his points have been proven to be false, he starts throwing anything out to deflect the conversation a different direction. How the 2nd could even be mentioned in the same sentence with suicide is beyond me. I need a drink.

[Fulltimer]

The "literalists/absolutists" seem comfortable with the common sense restrictions placed on the First and Second Amendment.

One cannot cry fire in a crowded theater, one cannot make threats against the President and no one claims their freedom of speech is abrogated.

But let one more weapon be added to the lengthy list of military hardware civilians are restricted from owning and carrying and the right goes off like their hair was on fire.

The Second Amendment is not absolute if any weapon is restricted from "the people" and when it becomes so glaringly obvious another needs to be added, that does not break the 2nd.

[Truckman]

But let one more weapon be added to the lengthy list of military hardware civilians are restricted from owning and carrying and the right goes off like their hair was on fire..

Gosh, I guess I missed that happening, Don...To precisely which "weapon" do you refer?......Ben