What do you consider to be "arms" that the bill of rights gives you freedom to own?
Posted on February 22nd, 2010 by admin
Our constitution gives us the rights to bear arms. Clearly nuclear weapons, which are technically arms, shouldn’t be legal for any person to own. And most would agree a grenade launcher should also be banned.
Where do you think the line should be drawn and why?
Sway, are you saying that all weapons should be legal because most people can’t afford them?
The Right to Bear Arms – is the right to defend yourself. Some people can buy guns, as long as they are registered. They should be used to protect yourself in your home. You can’t go around with your gun, in case something happens, but you can have it a home, in case of an intruder. You have the right to protect yourself and your family, but you can’t go around with your weapon looking for a fight.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:44 am
how many people do you knwo that can afford to buy grenade launchers and nuclear warheads?
Nope, thats not what I am saying, but you really arent going to have your local thug buying a tank and a nuclear warhead now are you?
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 am
i think that weapons should all be illegal
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:29 am
Anything up to a .50 caliber semi automatic rifle with a mile striking range.
The arms are really to protect us from the government and sometimes personal safety.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:12 am
What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:53 am
Handguns, rifles, machine guns, bows, crossbows, knives.
Anything else is too much.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:08 am
The Right to Bear Arms – is the right to defend yourself. Some people can buy guns, as long as they are registered. They should be used to protect yourself in your home. You can’t go around with your gun, in case something happens, but you can have it a home, in case of an intruder. You have the right to protect yourself and your family, but you can’t go around with your weapon looking for a fight.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 am
I think it should be the right to BARE arms. I like wearing T-shirts.
All joking aside, I think that people should have the right to have a handgun or something similar for self-defense, but the access to them should be carefully regulated so people who have a violent history can’t get a gun.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 am
Anything that can be used to defend you, your family, and your property from those who wish to cause harm. As long as the thing being used poses no significant threat towards innocent others.
References :
makes sense to me.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:03 am
Weapons usable for self defense. The libs don’t want us to own them because there is a hidden agenda to do a takeover like they did in USSR- like they did in Hitler’s Germany. They don’t want the people to be able to prevent such a takeover. The "elite" in Germany did not rebel against Hitler. The peasants did. Same in Russia.
=
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 am
I would look to the history and debates surrounding the drafting and adoption of the amendment, and the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia," for clues.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 am
Read the second amendment…….would you go to a gunfight with a knife? Would a poorly outfitted Militia stand a chance against a well armed Tyrants Army?
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 am
Actually, a grenade launcher is not that difficult to obtain. An SKS has a greanade launcher but the munition is hard to find. The rifle is relatively cheap and durable though.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 am
in australia they’ve banned automatic shotguns and we’ve never been able to use automatic rifles or smg’s. so its, semi automatic and single shot rifles and shotguns, and clips are still allowed, but nothing as high powered as a 50 cal. and crazy stuff like that. Sure it would be a bit of fun if we could use anything we wanted to but think of how quickly ppl could be killed whith the weapons banned here. an automatic shotgun for example if fully loaded and the unloaded into a crowd a lot of ppl would die and in real life there are no superheroes faster than a speeding bullet.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Rifles, Shotguns, and Pistols should fall into the perameters of the legal definition of "Arms". Now you’ll hear anti-gun groups talking about banning "assault rifles". Well technically any rifle despite it’s outward appearence can be used as an "assault rifle". For crying out loud a ball bat can be come an assault weapon.
The line should be drawn at laws being enforced and idiots not having firearms.
I for example have several firearms in a variety of sizes, styles and calibers and not one has ever been used to commit a violent crime, or any crime for that matter. However you are correct in saying that no one needs a grenade launcher. It is in no way meant for hunting, target or sport shooting. As far as nukes go, that’s just silly. The only way citizens would need those is if they needed to ensure that every citizen understands the premise of mutually assured destruction towards one another.
References :
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
It’s been fairly well established and accepted that it refers to arms for personal protection. This basically means firearms.
The gun lobbies have no issue with the law banning automatic weapons. And no issue with laws banning indescriminate weapons like grenades, bombs, claymore mines, howitzers or atom bombs.
In the state constitutions, like Michigans, it is more specific:
Article I, Section 6. "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
state."
References :