[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive.[/quote]
Certainly the Western Canon is considered offensive to those who would like to dismantle Western Civilisation.
And I’ve always found Pachibel’s Canon to be a bit offensive.[/quote]
Good catch.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I concur. I might find it entertaining to quibble jes a bit with the final phrase but nonetheless I’m a concurrin’ sumbitch here.[/quote]
So you contend that the 2nd Amendment also protects our unalienable right to keep and bear heavy artillery, rockets, bombs, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Shall we?[/quote]
Well, I am certainly of the opinion that the Second Amendment SHOULD protect my right to own and operate an Apache attack helicopter complete with Hellfire missiles and a Vulcan 20mm cannon.
If I had the money (the sticker price for the helicopter alone, without armaments, is 52 million dollars), I would certainly buy one, and hire someone to teach me to fly it.
I shudder to imagine, however, the legal hoops I would have to jump through to actually operate it. And let’s then consider the scrutiny I would be under if I ever suggested I would like to equip my helicopter with missiles containing tactical nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. People might get entirely the wrong idea.
I mean, if you can’t use a low-yield tac nuke or weaponised anthrax to defend freedom, what CAN you use it for?
Seriously, however, it was not the colonists’ right to own flintlock muskets that the Redcoats marched on Concord to infringe, but rather the battery of cannon (with two Ns, Nick) under their command.
After having witnessed the results of April 17, I cannot imagine the Founders wanting heavy artillery ONLY in the hands of the state.
Furthermore, Bonaparte once remarked that God is on the side with the best artillery, so not allowing the people to own heavy artillery could, in effect, be interpreted as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion, as well.
What I’m saying’ is, I be a concurrin’ sumbitch too.
[quote]pussfarter wrote:
[quote] Varqarooskibob wrote:
I mean, if you can’t use a low-yield tac nuke or weaponised anthrax to defend freedom, what CAN you use it for?[/quote]
Hunting down cult members of scientistism?[/quote]
Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the Hillsboro Baptist Church.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pussfarter wrote:
[quote] Varqarooskibob wrote:
I mean, if you can’t use a low-yield tac nuke or weaponised anthrax to defend freedom, what CAN you use it for?[/quote]
Hunting down cult members of scientistism?[/quote]
Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the Hillsboro Baptist Church.[/quote]
What do you think about picketing vets’ funerals with God hates US Soldiers placards and so on? Price of freedom? What about freedom of speech? Any bounds? In much of Europe holocaust denial is illegal. What’s your take?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand Scalia’s and Varq’s position on “borne” weapons. [/quote]
Not my position.
The present-day common law position.
My position is that the Second Amendment says “arms”. It does not specify what sort of arms, but I believe it was generally understood in 1791 that any arms in common use by the armies and navies of the world, including naval and field artillery, should be available for the people in well regulated militias, so that they may provide for the common defence and the security of a free state.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pussfarter wrote:
[quote] Varqarooskibob wrote:
I mean, if you can’t use a low-yield tac nuke or weaponised anthrax to defend freedom, what CAN you use it for?[/quote]
Hunting down cult members of scientistism?[/quote]
Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the Hillsboro Baptist Church.[/quote]
What do you think about picketing vets’ funerals with God hates US Soldiers placards and so on? Price of freedom? What about freedom of speech? Any bounds? In much of Europe holocaust denial is illegal. What’s your take?[/quote]
I just implied that I would not be opposed to the idea of someone firing anthrax and tactical nuclear warheads at them. I think you might be able to surmise what I think of them and their activities.
Their activities and statements are protected by the 1st amendment, which means that they may not be silenced by federal legislation. But the First Amendment does not prevent their members meeting with unfortunate accidents.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If the primary purpose of firearms was simply to kill then ownership of firearms would not be protected in the constitution. Their primary purpose is to defend against; tyranny, aggression, injury, etc… or to provide sustenance.
The outcome of fulling that purpose is often injury or death without question, but that doesn’t mean it is their purpose. [/quote]
You are misunderstanding what the Second Amendment says. Allow me to paraphrase.
"Because a well-armed, well-trained militia [that is, a military force composed of all of able-bodied citizens, with their own privately-owned weapons] is needed to ensure the security of a free state, the right of citizens to privately own weapons will not be diminished in any way."
Although the “security” of a free state can certainly be defended, it is the militia that is doing the defending or the securing. In order to defend or secure, they will use a variety of weapons, in both the attack and the defence.
[/quote]
Obviously firearms can’t defend anything on their own. They are just inanimate tools. I think Nick (and you) got my point.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pussfarter wrote:
[quote] Varqarooskibob wrote:
I mean, if you can’t use a low-yield tac nuke or weaponised anthrax to defend freedom, what CAN you use it for?[/quote]
Hunting down cult members of scientistism?[/quote]
Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of the Hillsboro Baptist Church.[/quote]
What do you think about picketing vets’ funerals with God hates US Soldiers placards and so on? Price of freedom? What about freedom of speech? Any bounds? In much of Europe holocaust denial is illegal. What’s your take?[/quote]
I just implied that I would not be opposed to the idea of someone firing anthrax and tactical nuclear warheads at them. I think you might be able to surmise what I think of them and their activities.
Their activities and statements are protected by the 1st amendment, which means that they may not be silenced by federal legislation. But the First Amendment does not prevent their members meeting with unfortunate accidents.[/quote]
Sure, I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said. I was just curious about your opinion on the limits(if there are any) to freedom of speech. In the rest of the Western world freedom of speech has not been so highly protected as in the US. For example, in Australia the courts have ruled that there is an “implied” right to freedom of speech but different judges have interpreted what this actually means in different ways - usually far less broad than the 1st amendment is interpreted in the United States. If someone tried to picket a vet’s funeral here they’d likely be beaten senseless by the family members and arrested by the police for all sorts of stuff like disturbing the peace, making a public nuisance and so on. They’d get the book thrown at them. Unless they were a Muslim of course. They’re sacred cows and you can’t criticise their actions or you’re an Islamophobe and you’re irrational fear of Muslims may lead directly to your being decapitated by someone who claims to be a Muslim but they’re not a “real” Muslim because Islam is a religion of peace that you can’t criticise or you get decapitated.
Prior to the Civil War, if Pennsylvania passed a law that said “We’re pacifists. We think weapons are atrocious and sinful. No one can own any kind of cannon, and all hand-held firearms shall not he stored in your own home, but in a community warehouse next to the courthouse.”…
…it would not have violated the federal Constitution or its Bill of Rights.
Looking at original intent is fine, as long as you look at all of it. In pre-Civil War America, you didn’t have a right to cannon unless the state you lived recognized said right. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.
(Hello all.)
I’ve noticed somewhat of a contradiction with a lot of 2nd amendment advocates. They are often the ones complaining about the police having “military” weapons and I’ve even seen them slip up and use forbidden liberal terms like “assault rifle” and “machine gun”. It seems weapons can fall into a military or civilian category when it’s the police but those lines are blurred or non-existent for the private owner.
Note: I’m not advocating anyone take away your guns. Just looking at things dispassionately as an outside observer. Personally I hate our restrictive gun laws and would like to see a 2nd Amendment right here(never gonna happen though).