What is an "Arsenal"

[NevadaLover]

 

[2025 deleted member]

Dalko I can see where you come from but I do disagree. When we are feelings and emotions we miss the mark. 2A is intended to give us a fighting chance. I will say if you can carry it and it goes bang I think the framers would say we should be allowed to own it. I disagree that supreme court judges can use feelings to interpret 2A. Regardless this is getting no where, we do need some way to have a better mental health care system, not sure how we do it though .

 

[toylandcruiser]

I'm going to chalk this up to brave internet talk. You keep saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment means nothing is off limits. And yet we live in country where machineguns are highly regulated, and tanks, warplanes, and various types of ordinance (conventional and non-conventional) are in fact off limits to civilians. I haven't seen any LandCruiser enthusiasts start an armed revolution over those 'infringements,' so I'm going to hazard a guess that you do acknowledge, explicitly or implicitly, that there are practical restrictions on the types of weapons you can own.

Edit: Also, you didn't answer my questions. Were they auctioning off WWII tanks with functioning armaments? Do you think a civilian should be able to own a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank (with an operational main gun and accompanying machineguns)?

Nope not tough internet talk. Because he have highly regulated 2a means it’s already been infringed. Nice little childish jab there I will never support “practical restrictions.” Once again, one of the simplest phrases written “Shall not be infringed.” It’s not difficult to understand nor to grasp what this means. It’s crazy. We didn’t have any restriction on weapons until the progressive era.

 

[toylandcruiser]

The 2nd amendment was most certainly written into the Constitution to allow for an armed citizenry that could resist the threats of tyranny (both foreign and internal threats). That said, the Constitution is a living, breathing document and there has been judicial interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and nearly all amendments for that matter, in order to determine their applicability to the modern laws that govern our society.

The court cases relevant the the 2nd amendment clearly demonstrate that while the citizens haven inherent right to own firearms, certain weapons can be restricted (machine guns) or outlawed all together (JDAM's and nuclear weapons on the more extreme end of the spectrum). I don't think the 2nd amendment was meant to give the citizenry parity of military capabilities with the US government. Nor do I think a citizen population would need those kinds of weapons to resist government tyranny in some hypothetical conflict (parity of weaponry is not needed in asymmetric warfare). The 2nd amendment was intended to give us, the citizens, the ability to own basic infantry weapons that are needed for defending life and property. In the 1700's that equated to muskets and bayonets. In the modern era that equates to bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons. That's my take on the issue anyways....

The constitution is not living and breathing.

 

[2025 deleted member]

I agree toyland. Most liberals, not saying that's you dalko, push the theory of "living and breathing" to say we can change the constitution to better fit us nowadays without amendments .

 

[SigSense]

 

[brentbba]

Obviously you've never shot a full auto firearm and a rifle with a bumpstock, there is no comparison between the 2, the bumpstock is a clumsy add on that under perfect conditions will help you unload faster but it is nothing liike a full auto in any aspect, it's a totally different experience!

I can honestly agree with this statement. Just returned from a 4 day training at Front Sight in NV. They offer a lunch time shoot with FULLY auto Uzi's, etc. $40 for one magazine. As they state, it'll be the fastest $40 you've spent in your entire life if you just point and shoot w/o releasing the trigger!! In my untrained hearing, comparing what I heard on all the Vegas audio/video clips on the news compared to what I heard during this lunch time shoot, there's absolutely no comparison in the speed of the sound of the rounds!

That already being said, I think even the NRA has said the bump stock would be one bone they'd throw away.

 

[NevadaLover]

I can honestly agree with this statement. Just returned from a 4 day training at Front Sight in NV. They offer a lunch time shoot with FULLY auto Uzi's, etc. $40 for one magazine. As they state, it'll be the fastest $40 you've spent in your entire life if you just point and shoot w/o releasing the trigger!! In my untrained hearing, comparing what I heard on all the Vegas audio/video clips on the news compared to what I heard during this lunch time shoot, there's absolutely no comparison in the speed of the sound of the rounds!

That already being said, I think even the NRA has said the bump stock would be one bone they'd throw away.

Not just the fastest, it is also one of the funnest $40 you can spend, and it is the best way to show people what the difference is between semi and full auto.

The saddest part to all this is the fact that the LV sheriff is finally admitting that only 1 of the shooters rifles had a bump stock, others were illegally obtained full autos which as we all know thanks to dalkos repeated invocation of the almighty 1986 NFA are already highly restricted and regulated, proving once again that existing gun laws go unenforced and criminals don't follow laws and will do whatever they have to in order to further their goals, so outlaw bump stocks and only outlaws will have bump stocks, same old tired story.

 

[NevadaLover]

Thats cool !
Fox News I presume ? Perhaps you have a source within Republican Joes Sheriffs Office ?

Huff post message boards.

 

[Dalko43]

The constitution is not living and breathing.

It is in the sense that our interpretations of it are constantly being critiqued and analyzed.

You and NevadaLover get all bent out of shape by the mere suggestion that bump stocks at least be regulated...you view that as a threat and "infringment" to your inalienable rights. You should go read the dissenting opinions of the Heller vs DC case and add that to the near possibility of another left-leaning justice having filled Scalia's seat (which seemed inevitable only a short while ago)....you should be more frightened of that than of a fellow gun owner having a different view on bump stocks.

Nope not tough internet talk. Because he have highly regulated 2a means it's already been infringed. Nice little childish jab there I will never support “practical restrictions.” Once again, one of the simplest phrases written “Shall not be infringed.” It's not difficult to understand nor to grasp what this means. It's crazy. We didn't have any restriction on weapons until the progressive era.

If you truly believe that "shall not be infringed" should mean that tanks and other advanced weaponry are fair game to anyone, then I'm glad your opinions carry no weight with the elected decision-makers. More to the point, I'm glad the mainstream gun rights groups don't advocate the same policy stance. Arguments like that carry no credibility whatsoever with the American public, not even for the large portion that owns firearms.

 

[SigSense]

I'm glad your opinions carry no weight with the elected decision-makers. More to the point, I'm glad the mainstream gun rights groups don't advocate the same policy stance. Arguments like that carry no credibility whatsoever with the American public, not even for the large portion that owns firearms.

But yet the opinions of average voters DO carry weight. We saw that in the last Presidential election. Average citizens are tired of the Lib/Left/Dem lies with regard to gun legislation. Gun rights groups have members too, and they must consider their opinions in order to exist. Let's all look at the latest BS from the Lib/Left reference this Bump Stock mania:

Real Reason “Bump Stock Bill” Is Being Pushed Through Unread: https://conservativetribune.com/bump-stock-bill-pushed-congress/

Dalko, are you aware that the Clinton/Gore Administration told the Supreme Court that the Federal government had the Right to seize all guns?

Arguing before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000, in the case of United States v. Emerson, the assistant United States attorney said exactly that, to an incredulous three-judge court.

Here's the exchange:

Chief Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
AUSA (attorney for the DOJ): "Yes"
Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
AUSA: "Exactly."

Source: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/emerson.htm

There is no question that the infringement of gun rights is ongoing and focused. The assertion that "common sense" pervades the gun control issue is humorous.

 

[toylandcruiser]

It is in the sense that our interpretations of it are constantly being critiqued and analyzed.

You and NevadaLover get all bent out of shape by the mere suggestion that bump stocks at least be regulated...you view that as a threat and "infringment" to your inalienable rights. You should go read the dissenting opinions of the Heller vs DC case and add that to the near possibility of another left-leaning justice having filled Scalia's seat (which seemed inevitable only a short while ago)....you should be more frightened of that than of a fellow gun owner having a different view on bump stocks.



If you truly believe that "shall not be infringed" should mean that tanks and other advanced weaponry are fair game to anyone, then I'm glad your opinions carry no weight with the elected decision-makers. More to the point, I'm glad the mainstream gun rights groups don't advocate the same policy stance. Arguments like that carry no credibility whatsoever with the American public, not even for the large portion that owns firearms.

But see it’s not just bumpstocks you are ok with being regulated. I have a feeling you would be on with the Gov regulating other weapons and accessories as well. How can the 2nd amendment be interpreted any other way? It’s 5 simple words that are still used today and the meaning of those words have not been changed. See court cases are not law. The constitution is law. Because a judge or a group of judges make a decision on a case doesn’t make it law or even the correct decision. If a judge rules in something the goes against the constitution. That law is illegal.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Illegal or unconstitutional ?? I bet there is a difference...

Same difference right?

 

[Dalko43]

But see it's not just bumpstocks you are ok with being regulated. I have a feeling you would be on with the Gov regulating other weapons and accessories as well.

Weapons and other accessories are already regulated. You have to pass a federal background check to buy any firearm at an over-the-counter store. Most states require additional paperwork and permitting for pistols and/or concealed carry. You have to deal with a whole lot more regulation and paperwork to buy and own an automatic. "Shall not be infringed" already has a lot of caveats in place, realistically speaking.

See court cases are not law. The constitution is law.

Court cases determine how existing laws are interpreted and applied. This is civics 101. If we can't even agree on that, then you and I are living on different planets.

You guys are not living in reality if you think "shall not be infringed" means any and all weapons should be fair game, in an unregulated manner.

 

[2025 deleted member]

If you can carry it that is what it means regardless of what new laws are passed after it to nueter it. We have to follow the law, but that doesn't make it right.