.

Citizens Have Right to Same Weapons as Military

serfserf Member Posts: 7,526 ✭✭✭
How do you fell about this stance ? I don't think it's going to fly anytime soon with The FEDs.

serf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uhscYt4_OVk

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), who unseated longtime Rep. Cliff Stearns last year thanks in large part to Tea Party support, sat down with Florida political blog The Shark Tank over the weekend to discuss gun violence. The freshman GOPer said he'd spoken with a number of constituents recently and approvingly relayed their sentiment: "when you read the Second Amendment," Yoho said, "the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government." Preserving those protections, he argued, is "more important today than ever":

Comments

  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member Posts: 35,724 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That guy hit the x-ring!
  • 0oAKo47o00oAKo47o0 Member Posts: 454 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.
  • guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 0oAKo47o0
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.


    Don't you trust us?

    Our government doesn't.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    1776-1791 Musket
    2013 M-16/M-4 and/or M-249 SAW.
    Amendment #2 requires the government to allow the 'militia' (us) to be armed the same as the INDIVIDUAL soldier!
    Nuff said![8D]
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 59,626 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by guntech59
    quote:Originally posted by 0oAKo47o0
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.


    Don't you trust us?

    Our government doesn't.
    They trust us, they just want to control us.[:D]
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • llamallama Member Posts: 2,778
    edited November -1
    Strangely, that is the argument the government made to the SCOTUS in Miller v. US (re: NFA - they said the short barrel shotgun and full auto were not what the average infantry soldier was issued at the time and so the 2nd didn't protect them).
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No one has ever said anything about WMD's. That is something that the left would say. Small arms were the primary weapons of the day. And I believe that is what the founders were referring to when they penned the 2nd. Today, small arms can be quite large. But I think the founders understood that the people could obtain larger weapons with enough small ones. And with enough people willing to use them. That part may be hard to come by.
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 45long
    No one has ever said anything about WMD's. That is something that the left would say. Small arms were the primary weapons of the day. And I believe that is what the founders were referring to when they penned the 2nd. Today, small arms can be quite large. But I think the founders understood that the people could obtain larger weapons with enough small ones. And with enough people willing to use them. That part may be hard to come by.

    I agree completely. As an Origionalist ANY small arms should be OK, Even full auto. WMD, BIO or chemical I don't think anyone could argue as arms. Drones, tanks and SAM's aren't arms either; my dilemma is in Field pieces. These were in civilian hands, and how large should be acceptable. Perhaps it would be the HI explosive shell as the determent factor, Since it could be fired over 2 counties at a target.
    Just asking.
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    If one were properly trained in the maintenance and support of a nuke or drone, it might be possible to KEEP one, but I seriously doubt that an individual would be able to BEAR either of them.
  • cat66hatcat66hat Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Llama,

    Are you sure that Miller v. U.S. was a Supreme Court case? I thought it was just a Federal Appellate Court decision.

    The militia must be allowed to be armed with weapons for the defense of the State. The test of 'what is currently used by the military' is another bogus test along the same lines of 'sporting purpose'. Neither of these tests are in the 2A.

    For example, our military is constrained, somewhat, by the Geneva Convention and NATO agreements. The militia is not constrained by those agreements.

    The only reason anyone pays attention to these tests is because it is convenient for the USG.

    Terry
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    that is an interesting approach. if certain arms are not used by the military and thus are not protected. the the only ones protected by 2A are the ones used by the military. thus (class 3) full auto would be protected and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • torosapotorosapo Member Posts: 4,946
    edited November -1
    I believe that if I could afford it I should be able to own a main battle tank with same ammo the Army has. That being said, the state and county maintain the roads so I don't think I should be able to joy ride down the road tearing it up.[8D]
  • oledoc2uoledoc2u Member Posts: 57 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Love the discussion. Makes me wonder when all those rights began to be taken away.. Was it in the 30's when Chicago violence was at an all time high, because if it was, guess what? lol. I never really understood the 80's argument except for when it was popular to put down a Vietnam vet everytime an AR was "supposedly" used in a crime. Many don't remember those days. I think they are all wrong. But our society today continues to fuel their argument.
  • torosapotorosapo Member Posts: 4,946
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by oledoc2u
    Love the discussion. Makes me wonder when all those rights began to be taken away.. Was it in the 30's when Chicago violence was at an all time high, because if it was, guess what? lol. I never really understood the 80's argument except for when it was popular to put down a Vietnam vet everytime an AR was "supposedly" used in a crime. Many don't remember those days. I think they are all wrong. But our society today continues to fuel their argument.



    Actually in 1930 the murder rate in Chicago was only 15 in 100,000 people. At that time full auto weapons were legal and readily available. In 1970 it was 24 per 100k, 2008 down to 18.03 per 100k.
    http://chicagocrimescenes.blogspot.com/2009/07/138-years-of-murder-in-chicago.html
    In reality Chicago is safer than Phllidelphia 23 per 100k, Detroit 33.8 per 100k and Gary Indiana with 73.2 per 100k.

    All of the data points to the fact more guns equal less murder.
  • hugh damrighthugh damright Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The way I understand it, a "free state" is controlled by its citizens ... a standing army poses the threat of military rule, but a militia composed of the body of people cannot turn, or be turned, against the people ... if an individual has weapons of mass destruction, then that does not secure a free state, but rather it fosters terrorism.
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 59,626 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by hugh damright
    The way I understand it, a "free state" is controlled by its citizens ... a standing army poses the threat of military rule, but a militia composed of the body of people cannot turn, or be turned, against the people ... if an individual has weapons of mass destruction, then that does not secure a free state, but rather it fosters terrorism.
    So, if not the individual, then who? It's not like they are going away. Your path doesn't seem to have led to your conclusion.[:I]
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • hugh damrighthugh damright Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:So, if not the individual, then who? It's not like they are going away. Your path doesn't seem to have led to your conclusion.

    The people, of course ... the collective ... militia is not an individual, it is a force that is composed of, and thus represents, the body of people.

    How does the other path lead to its conclusion ... if I had atomic weapons at my personal whim then how would that ensure that the people govern themselves freely?
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 59,626 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by hugh damright
    quote:So, if not the individual, then who? It's not like they are going away. Your path doesn't seem to have led to your conclusion.

    The people, of course ... the collective ... militia is not an individual, it is a force that is composed of, and thus represents, the body of people.

    How does the other path lead to its conclusion ... if I had atomic weapons at my personal whim then how would that ensure that the people govern themselves freely?
    First of all, atomic weapons are prohibitively complex and expensive for an individual to have them. I suppose there is some rogue billionaire out there who may have used his/her money to acquire one or even a couple. In fact, I would bet $50 bucks on it. So, it's not really helping your case to assume that the individual does not already have nukes.

    But your answer begs the question, if the individual does not have military arms, and you are arguing that the militia should, do you not understand that the militia is made up of individuals who privately own arms? That is how militias work. If the arms are collectively owned and kept, you don't have a militia, you have a rogue collective that is just as dangerous as a federally run and funded army. There would be no distinction between the two.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • hugh damrighthugh damright Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    We're not talking about small arms being collectively owned, we're talking about weapons of mass destruction. Do you really think it would be as safe for individuals to own weapons of mass destruction? I think there is an incredible difference between the two.
  • hugh damrighthugh damright Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    What do you think is meant by the term "free State", and why do you think it was declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to its security?

    My understanding is that a free State is a body of people, a collective, that govern themselves. It regards popular government. It was declared that a standing army might turn or be turned against the people, but a militia composed of the body of people cannot turn against itself. It seems obvious to me that an individual can also turn against popular government, that placing weapons of mass destruction in the hands of individuals does not secure a free State but rather it is a terrorist threat.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If the individual is superior to government as is stated in our Constitution, then there is no reason that citizen cannot possess superior arms than that government.

    The prefatory clause is a source of endless confusion if you allow it to be. The fact is that the purpose stated in the prefatory clause does not in any way limit or enhance the simple statement in operative clause.

    The 2nd Amendment would have the same meaning if it was simply: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    Not all of us can afford to be better armed than our local jack-boots. The artificially high cost and capped numbers of selective-fire weapons (thank you Mr. Reagan and the NRA) is an extreme infringement designed specifically to prevent the citizenry from protecting itself from government.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • hugh damrighthugh damright Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The 2nd Amendment would have the same meaning if it was simply: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
    That assertion does not seem to coincide with the history as I understand it. There have been times when Virginians had our personal arms, but we were not a free State ... we once had British Troops here, supposedly for our protection, but really to dominate us. We declared that a standing army is a danger to liberty, and that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free state is a militia composed of the people of that state. There was also a time during reconstruction when Virginia was reduced to "US Military District Number One", when again we had our personal arms but no free State ... President Johnson said that it was a violtion of the Second Amendment, and I can see his reasoning.

    Also, the Virginia bill of rights didn't have the part about the people until the 1970's, and other bills of rights list the right of the people as one item and the principle that a militia secures free government as another item. The way you are spinning it, Virginia's declaration said nothing until the 1970's, and some states have bills of rights with amendments that mean nothing.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by hugh damright
    quote:The 2nd Amendment would have the same meaning if it was simply: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
    That assertion does not seem to coincide with the history as I understand it. There have been times when Virginians had our personal arms, but we were not a free State ... we once had British Troops here, supposedly for our protection, but really to dominate us. We declared that a standing army is a danger to liberty, and that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free state is a militia composed of the people of that state. There was also a time during reconstruction when Virginia was reduced to "US Military District Number One", when again we had our personal arms but no free State ... President Johnson said that it was a violtion of the Second Amendment, and I can see his reasoning.

    Also, the Virginia bill of rights didn't have the part about the people until the 1970's, and other bills of rights list the right of the people as one item and the principle that a militia secures free government as another item. The way you are spinning it, Virginia's declaration said nothing until the 1970's, and some states have bills of rights with amendments that mean nothing.


    Obviously you missed the point.

    English grammar tells us that in the context of the 2nd Amendment, the prefatory clause is meaningless. It states a purpose and a reason perhaps, but it has no bearing on the actual statement of the right.

    I am sure many states have bills of rights that mean nothing. The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald told us that fundamentally the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means nothing. Scalia, however, did confirm what I stated above, for what that's worth.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 0oAKo47o0
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.

    The Constitution does not give us the right to own WMD's. It does however state we as individuals DO HAVE THE RIGHT to own the same individual weapons issued to our active duty soldiers. [8D]
    But WE have allowed this RIGHT to erode to where it is now![:(!]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by 0oAKo47o0
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.

    The Constitution does not give us the right to own WMD's. It does however state we as individuals DO HAVE THE RIGHT to own the same individual weapons issued to our active duty soldiers. [8D]
    But WE have allowed this RIGHT to erode to where it is now![:(!]


    What makes your limits more Constitutional than Sarah Brady's, Jim?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by 0oAKo47o0
    This is a tough issue. I believe we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. But I'm not sure about private citizens owning WMDs like nukes or hellfire missle equipped drones.

    The Constitution does not give us the right to own WMD's. It does however state we as individuals DO HAVE THE RIGHT to own the same individual weapons issued to our active duty soldiers. [8D]
    But WE have allowed this RIGHT to erode to where it is now![:(!]


    What makes your limits more Constitutional than Sarah Brady's, Jim?

    If you can't figure this one out on our own there is no hope for you, sorry![V]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    The Constitution does not give us the right to own WMD's. It does however state we as individuals DO HAVE THE RIGHT to own the same individual weapons issued to our active duty soldiers. [8D]
    But WE have allowed this RIGHT to erode to where it is now![:(!]


    What makes your limits more Constitutional than Sarah Brady's, Jim?

    If you can't figure this one out on our own there is no hope for you, sorry![V]


    Less Intrusive does not equate to More Constitutional, Jim.

    At the time of the writing of the Constitution, Jim, individuals owned boats/ships equipped with crew-served weapons. These were legal and Constitutional. You have decided that they are not legal or Constitutional. Sarah Brady would agree.

    You may also want to consider when 'Destructive Devices' began to be regulated. Up until the NFA of 1934 cannons were not regulated. In other words, they were deemed Constitutional to own.

    So, when did your definition of 'arms' become significant and when did it become what is stated in the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, why should anyone respect the limits you place upon the individual anymore than they should respect the limits Sarah Brady and Mayor Bloomberg would place upon the individual?

    The bottom line, Jim, is that you obviously support some of the erosion you disparage, and have re-defined the word 'arms' to justify your acceptance.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    The 'spirit' of the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to the 'letter', is to allow the 'militia' (all citizens not agents of the government) to have access to the same arms as the 'individuals' who were serving in active service. The first Ten Amendments are rights granted to INDIVIDUALS not to CREWS, as in crew served weapons! Realty simple when you look at intent rather than letter of the law. [:)]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,948 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    The 'spirit' of the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to the 'letter', is to allow the 'militia' (all citizens not agents of the government) to have access to the same arms as the 'individuals' who were serving in active service. The first Ten Amendments are rights granted to INDIVIDUALS not to CREWS, as in crew served weapons! Realty simple when you look at intent rather than letter of the law. [:)]


    You walk a dangerous path when divining intent, Jim, and have added a whole lot of words to the 2nd to define what you believe the 'spirit' of it to be. Frankly, one can pretty much believe anything one wants to about intent. We know that many on the left fully believe the intent of the second did not include the private ownership of semi-auto rifles. Many on both sides fully believe the intent of the second did not include the private ownership of select-fire rifles. There is also unanimous agreement that legislation by governments can deny certain segments of our population this fundamental right across the board.

    Intent is not important. It has been made meaningless by folks like you who use it to limit an individual right that is specifically protected by the words 'shall not be infringed'.

    It is only simple if you are looking for easy answers that are in alignment with your beliefs. It becomes a much more difficult question when you consider what the actual intent probably was.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Take it from someone who has been dealing with the 'law' his whole live. The most important aspect of any law is the spirit/intent, not the letter of the law.
    I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am 100% in support of the Bill of Rights but I look at the intent the founders had in passing those amendments, not what some 'judge'(or anyone) try to say when they look only at the letter of the law.
  • skicatskicat Member Posts: 14,431
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Take it from someone who has been dealing with the 'law' his whole live. The most important aspect of any law is the spirit/intent, not the letter of the law.
    I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am 100% in support of the Bill of Rights but I look at the intent the founders had in passing those amendments, not what some 'judge'(or anyone) try to say when they look only at the letter of the law.


    Since "intent" can only be subjectively interpreted, you would put the sanctity of the BOR on a sliding scale open to 300 + million interpretations. That is hardly supporting the BOR 100%.

    The argument about crew served weapons or weapons of mass destruction is really unnecessary to quibble over. It is self regulating in all regards. If you consider that the individual is actually more important than the state then these infringements based on a lack of trust of the individual must be abandoned.

    Conditional trust is no template with which to safeguard our rights. "We will trust you with a rifle but not that grenade." Once a person proves themselves untrustworthy, only then can the state take steps to correct a communal problem. Until such an event, the individual is still in posession of all rights and not subject to infringement.

    Notice the framers used "infringed" and not "denied". Their intent ,if you will, was to thwart the smallest reductions in liberty. The argument you proffer, opens the door to endless termite like erosion of liberty. Time to re-examine this arbitrary position.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Take it from someone who has been dealing with the 'law' his whole live. The most important aspect of any law is the spirit/intent, not the letter of the law.
    I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am 100% in support of the Bill of Rights but I look at the intent the founders had in passing those amendments, not what some 'judge'(or anyone) try to say when they look only at the letter of the law.


    Since "intent" can only be subjectively interpreted, you would put the sanctity of the BOR on a sliding scale open to 300 + million interpretations. That is hardly supporting the BOR 100%.

    The argument about crew served weapons or weapons of mass destruction is really unnecessary to quibble over. It is self regulating in all regards. If you consider that the individual is actually more important than the state then these infringements based on a lack of trust of the individual must be abandoned.

    Conditional trust is no template with which to safeguard our rights. "We will trust you with a rifle but not that grenade." Once a person proves themselves untrustworthy, only then can the state take steps to correct a communal problem. Until such an event, the individual is still in posession of all rights and not subject to infringement.

    Notice the framers used "infringed" and not "denied". Their intent ,if you will, was to thwart the smallest reductions in liberty. The argument you proffer, opens the door to endless termite like erosion of liberty. Time to re-examine this arbitrary position.

    Your comment about trust is right on!!![8D]
    One of the points I have been trying to get across for MANY years is "All good relationships are based on trust, and all bad relationships are based on the lack there of". Our discussion about the 'intent' of the Bill of Rights is mute because OUR government does not TRUST US to exercise our basic rights![:(] And as a result we have NO TRUST of our government![V] The question is where is this leading?? Will the vast majority of the people become 'useful idiots' for the progressives and allow them to take control or will WE say 'enough is enough' and fight back!!![?]
Sign In or Register to comment.