As I said: So long as you agree 2nd protects the right to keep and bear every class of firearm, you are free to argue it also protects the right to own and use a nuclear weapon. Have fun. Let us know how it goes.
Right to bear arms to is just that that right to bear arms. The founding father could have restricted the right to bear arms to hand held arms thereby excluding cannons and mortars and torpedoes ( mines) in 18th century talk. They did not restrict and types nor set any limit of the number of guns any one could posses. I am thinking something small such a nuclear cruise missile to start.
Personal arms can be operated by a single person and carried by one. How many States have Dems lost tilting at this Constitutional Windmill? CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: Delaware Supreme Court strikes down broad restrictions on gun possession in state parks and forests. Under the Delaware Constitution’s right to arms. If Dems keep this up, they will lose even more of few remaining states with a strong gun culture that still remain Blue.
If a particular state doesn't want it, they should limit these permits to interstate right-of-ways (and perhaps establishments immediately adjacent to them).
I am not arguing against you. I think that I stated very clearly that the the 2nd amendment of the Constitution does not restrict ownership, use, of type of weapons that an individual or the "well regulated militia" can possess. If I was challenged to interpret the 2nd amendment I will rule that it was intended that both the individual and the well regulated militia are given that right. Of course I will agree that given the technology and unsettled conditions of the 18th century even though it was most practical an individual who us part of the militia possess his musket at home but not the cannon or mortars of the company. Given today's conditions it is not practical that our national guard keep crew serviced weapons or mortars at home. Again that restriction is based on practicality not on the Constitution. I have not been invited to argue in front of the SUPREMES so this post is my closing argument that legally any US citizen can legally possess a nuclear weapon.
If ones things about the issue if gun control from a logical, legal, and non partisan viewpoint one will see that severe gun controls or the idiocy of gun banning is not feasible due to it's impracticality not partisan position. See my other post about this on the Constitution supporting unrestricted weapon ownership.
Perhaps not in the US Constitution, but here in New Mexico it's very very specific. Text of Section 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Would that be the "gem" where you claimed a constitutional right personal tactical nukes? No thank you!
My argument is actually rooted in the Constitution. But the application of the right to bear arms in it's absolute sense may appear as a "restriction " but that "restriction" is based on practicality and not a violation of the Constitution. I edited my response because maybe I was not clear . Hope this is clearer. I will also say that practicality will save us from gun confiscation. What I am saying is that those who would want to ban guns if they managed to get around the unconstitutionality of that they would not be able to pull it off due to the fact that there are at least if more hand guys in this country than people. That is not even accounting for he fact that a lot of us would resist confiscation. So practically pushes both what appears to be a restriction in holding weapons and in keeping our right to bear arms. Edited
Have you learned yet (in 'elementary school' or somewhere else) that the 2nd Amendment is an embedded PART of Constitution of the United States? Have you learned yet that the only way that anything in the Constitution can be changed is through the process of amendment? I posed this reality to you earlier in the thread, but did not see a reply. I just wanted to make sure you do understand this so that you won't embarrass yourself further.... Unless or until AMENDED (changed in some way), everything that is actually in the Constitution applies to ALL states of the United States! And, according to the 10th Amendment, everything that is not actually a part of the Constitution can be decided by the states, "or, the people." This is true even in states, counties, and municipalities that are infested with America-hating, Constitution-hating, liberal Democrats! Here... surely even someone fresh out of "elementary school" can 'get it' -- Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." . "Now! That wasn't so hard, was it...?"
I am speaking in the pure right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment is written there is no restriction of the type of weapon we can own. I will default back to the practical and no it is not practical thatvwe own privately help nuclear weapons. The same argument would hold for the amount of ammunition that we are allowed to have. The 2nd does not restrict us from having a million rounds of ammunition but affordability and a place to safely and securely store it restricts us. Plus it may just bring on a teeny itsy bit of unwanted attention.
Wonder why the framers did not say " All the powers not delegated to the United States ....... Maybe I am being picky and they were just being efficient in word usage.
I dunno, either. But, even though I'm an old guy, those framers were all dead and gone before I ever got here. They did a great job though, and their use of the English language was excellent. The Constitution was written to be the bedrock foundation for the entire United States (all of us) -- with the built-in ability to change, modify, and 'amend' it. Those considerations not specifically enumerated and described in the Constitution were left to the individual states and their citizens. So, when Leftists and liberal Democrats bitched last year about the Electoral College, and I said in reply, "If you don't like the Electoral College, amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College!" Now we're going to hear more bitching from the same bunch of hyperlibs about the personal possession of individual firearms by law-abiding citizens anywhere within the borders of our country. My reply will be pretty much the same... "If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, amend the Constitution to get rid of the 2nd Amendment!"
When I read your first two paragraphs I agreed with everything you said and I was elated since you came accross as a level headed intelligent fair minded guy. I thought hey we can have an honest discussion. Then after word seven of paragraph three I realized that you post is just another one of of those stupid asinine bkame game of liberals bad, no conservatives bad, Democrats bad, no Republicans bad so I stopped reading because I have decided that it is not worth the time to waste on partisan gibberish when we are trying to discuss our Constitution which I believe a great piece of work forming the foundation of what our country was, is, and a bible if you will for the future. Yes I am disappointed because even though this is a political debate forum it dies not mean that we should Wallis in the stench of partisan swill 100 % of the time here just because we can. You must have guessed by now that Inam not bothering reading. The rest of your post after word seven.
You really should get educated because your first sentence shows your ignorance on this issue. The people your are talking about , domestic violence and felons, couldn't pass the background check to purchase a firearm, let alone get a CHL. <Mod Edit- Rule 4>
Suit yourself! Libs like to bitch nearly all the time concerning things they don't like about the United States in general, and the Constitution in particular. If that suits you, you're not alone. We've had a pretty steady diet of their erratic, dysfunctional crap, and been largely under their power and influence since about January 2007. How do you like what the United States has turned into for about the past ten years...? I quit the Republican Party this past July. I'd stopped being a Democrat after I became an adult and started earning my own living. Today, nobody represents me.... I'm an old 'Reagan-Republican' with nowhere to go.... The truth remains, although you may not like it, that when there are things about the Constitution that we don't like, or that we think can and should be changed, there is the ability to actually DO that, instead of just whining, pouting, and bitching all the time. If you find even that offensive, or think that it reflects too much "partisan swill", then what would you suggest we do instead? Have bloody revolutions, complete with dead bodies piled in the streets? Part of why I liked the Reagan years so much is that we had a generally cooperative spirit of togetherness in Congress, a dynamic, America-loving, intelligent president, and the only really good Federal Reserve Chairman we've had in decades -- Paul Volcker. It wasn't a perfect 'match made in heaven', but it was vastly preferable to this unending, horrible 'axe-fight' we have every damned day now!
Wrong https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/m...iction/firearm-rights-after-felony-conviction Who is the "ignorant" one now
Why do you refuse to understand states do not issue CCW licenses to people who cannot legally own a firearm?
https://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/alaskas-absurd-felon-firearm-laws/ http://www.leaac.com/faq-resources/gun-possession-and-ownership-after-a-louisiana-conviction/ https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/microsites/relief-criminal-conviction/ http://www.recordgone.com/florida/fl-gun-rights-restoration.htm https://www.msgo.com/threads/restoration-of-firearms-rights-in-mississippi.53773/ http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2017/08/can-a-felon-own-a-gun-in-texas/ Google it, this only a sample, and you'll even see attorneys advertising to assist you