Indeed. But it is what we live under. The SCOTUS, and the Feds so far, have upheld that NFA 1934, and GCA 1968, along with the Hughes Amendment . Are all "good" law, and all "constitutional". Famously, one of the Supreme Court Justices have said that the 2A is "not unlimited"
Yes...However...Indeed. But it is what we live under. The SCOTUS, and the Feds so far, have upheld that NFA 1934, and GCA 1968, along with the Hughes Amendment . Are all "good" law, and all "constitutional". Famously, one of the Supreme Court Justices have said that the 2A is "not unlimited"
The sad truth is .... People let that happen.
The problem is not even the pro gun community can define what level of military arms a standard citizen should be allowed.
My whole premise is that as written, the BOR is absolute in what is says and what it does not, and there is NO ambiguity anywhere in it, it flat out says what is and what isn't and nothing else! IT was meant to be a stopper on government, to prevent the exact things that have been happening, and SCOTUS is 100% complicit in it! NO single BODY has the right or authority to make changes to that document, we expressly created a means to make changes, and we made it very hard, that way we FORCE the process to endure all challenges before it becomes final, we don't want changes to be easy, otherwise we would have lost the 2nd LONG ago! With that said, We the People have not done our job of restraining our government, instructing them in no uncertain terms what is to be and what isn't, what they are allowed under OUR authority, and what isn't! AND we have allowed them to believe that THEY hold the power over We the People, and not the other way around, and in this, it will likely be up to us to effect the needed changes!Indeed. But it is what we live under. The SCOTUS, and the Feds so far, have upheld that NFA 1934, and GCA 1968, along with the Hughes Amendment . Are all "good" law, and all "constitutional". Famously, one of the Supreme Court Justices have said that the 2A is "not unlimited"
Again...nothing in the 2nd Amendment limits what Arms may be kept..
Me.... Parity of arms with the Federal Government, or better... Is what a standard citizen should be able to acquire. The only limit is funding, and only limit is what the government is allowed to have by the People. If the People say government should not have control of nuclear, biologic and chemical weapons? So be it. But that doesn't restrict the People from having them; especially as chemists, scientists and inventors.
Well that will get complicated real quick. Like anyone wants their chemist neighbor to be inventing nukes, bio and chemical weapons.
Tell that to the people of Midland, Michigan
The "pro gun" community has in large part long said 2A is NOT a right, that it is a privilege. So they got just what they asked for
Perhaps a 20-kiloton self-defense thermonuclear device would be a bit much. Need to cap it at 19-kilotons.
I dont know about that. Unless your including all gun owners in the pro gun community?The "pro gun" community has in large part long said 2A is NOT a right, that it is a privilege. So they got just what they asked for
As I said, everything short of NBC weapons (which nobody, including the government, should have).
A VERY sad, VERY large part of the people who should know better either ignore what's going on, or worse yet actually support the people doing them wrong. A lot of people want to pretend this is not the way it is.
It sounds like you group all gun owners into the gun rights community. I personally do not think the vast majority of gun owners are pro gun rights.A VERY sad, VERY large part of the people who should know better either ignore what's going on, or worse yet actually support the people doing them wrong. A lot of people want to pretend this is not the way it is.
Pretending we did not do this to ourselves does nothing as we march on towards the kind of laws they have in places like the UK
But many countries, and even terrorist organizations have access to NBC weapons, so why shouldn't civilian Americans be denied access to NBC weapons, if only for testing inventions and stupid ideas? (Like is this homemade device actually able to defeat EMP? Or keep radiation out, or protect person from chemicals?)
At current cost per shot, how many people in America could actually afford to build or purchase the raw materials for a BombBut many countries, and even terrorist organizations have access to NBC weapons, so why shouldn't civilian Americans be denied access to NBC weapons, if only for testing inventions and stupid ideas? (Like is this homemade device actually able to defeat EMP? Or keep radiation out, or protect person from chemicals?)
On a serious note though, that can be a very expensive proposition and even with the removal of Chevron Doctrine, you would still have to deal with environmental issues, health issues, and very likely economic issues.
So everything short of NBC, I'd be willing to be okay with, it'd be better than "civilians can't have military issued small arms weapons without registration and restrictions, and a total ban on live missiles and the like"
Edit 2. But on the other hand, such a policy would require that the majority of the people be actually responsible, accountable, and generally well behaved. Which right now seems to be quite improbable
Yes.
