What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Will_White]

I listened to a podcast a few weeks ago that stuck with me and got me thinking. It was a discussion between a Libertarian Pastor and a YouTuber (fairly conservative) about the Second Amendment. They both agreed that it at least covered what the typical soldier or police officer would carry, but they disagreed in how far beyond that it extends. I won't say what they came up with (mainly because I don't remember exactly) but my thoughts are that 2A should cover anything man portable that can be directed at a single point target. What do you all think?

TLDR: Beyond a standard soldiers loadout, what does the 2A protect at the individual level?

Read More

 

[notazombie]

Go read 2A again. No restrictions, limitations, or exceptions are listed. None.

 

[DuneHopper]

I listened to a podcast a few weeks ago that stuck with me and got me thinking. It was a discussion between a Libertarian Pastor and a YouTuber (fairly conservative) about the Second Amendment. They both agreed that it at least covered what the typical soldier or police officer would carry, but they disagreed in how far beyond that it extends. I won't say what they came up with (mainly because I don't remember exactly) but my thoughts are that 2A should cover anything man portable that can be directed at a single point target. What do you all think?

READ:
1908 the FBI was formed and later carried tommy guns and weapons that were their own.
They DID NOT carry because they were allowed because they were the FBI in fact at the time
there was no budget for any one to be armed so the agents bought their own and carried
the law that allowed them to do this was stated clear by Egar Hoover who said the 2nd Amendment gives
our men the right to buy what ever arms they want as citizens if this United States.
This also can used to argue when they say the 2nd refers to Muskets and it was clear it was not.
When the FBI was being formed the idea of arms for them to carry was solely because they were
citizens not because they were agents as not until 1938 or 39 thats when congress gave the FBI a budget to pay for arms, however they operated
many years only as citizens armed in their employment. Not until much later would permission be given to varied agencies around 1971.

 

[Geardo]

Anything short of WMD should be good to go in my opinion.

If we actually have problems with gangs using RPGs at police on a regular basis, we could discuss NFA type regulations on them, but 1 week wait time maximum!

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I think we could beat the anti's and anyone else wanting to infringe by creating a well-regulated militia and belonging to it. Then they can all go kick rocks.

 

[Boboclown]

Reasonable restrictions? Um... I have one...

After removing the BS gun laws, politicians can no longer infringe on our rights. I think that's reasonable.

 

[Geardo]

I think we could beat the anti's and anyone else wanting to infringe by creating a well-regulated militia and belonging to it. Then they can all go kick rocks.

Would you join one then? I am really considering attempting to start one soon for exactly this reason.

 

[Will_White]

Go read 2A again. No restrictions, limitations, or exceptions are listed. None.

I've read it, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice should private citizens be allowed to own and use Nukes?

 

[MasterChief]

YES



Fireworks are AWESOME!

 

[GOG]

reasonable restrictions = slightly pregnant

The definition of "reasonable" is open to extreme interpretation so let's just go with "Shall Not Be Infringed". THAT seems eminently reasonable to me.

 

[Will_White]

reasonable restrictions = slightly pregnant

The definition of "reasonable" is open to extreme interpretation so let's just go with "Shall Not Be Infringed". THAT seems eminently reasonable to me.

Ok so should private citizens be allowed to own and use nukes?

 

[308]

I think it reasonable if one does not want to own a gun, then that one shouldn't. As far as what others do, it is reasonable that one STFU and mind their own business.

 

[GOG]

Until not all that many years ago you could buy a machine gun at the local hardware store.

Should individuals be permitted to have nukes? Probably not, but it's just a theoretical talking point. Personal property is personal and that means private as in nobody's business.

The real question is what am I'm going to do with all these spent fuel rods now that I shut my reactor down.

 

[albin25]

Here's a reasonable restriction;

If you can't pick it up unassisted and fire at least 1 aimed shot ....
.... you can't own more than 2 without a permit.

 

[Will_White]

Until not all that many years ago you could buy a machine gun at the local hardware store.

Should individuals be permitted to have nukes? Probably not, but it's just a theoretical talking point. Personal property is personal and that means private as in nobody's business.

The real question is what am I'm going to do with all these spent fuel rods now that I shut my reactor down.

I'm aware of the time Pre-NFA and I think citizens should be able to own machine guns without any hassles. But I'm talking we repeal all the laws on the books, where do we draw the line for private ownership of arms, Nukes? This whole discussion is theoretical talking points.

 

[Boboclown]

Why draw the line at nukes? I want my death star.

 

[cigars]

Ok so should private citizens be allowed to own and use nukes?

Perhaps weaponry with a lethal, non-discriminating blast radius should be restricted to use outside populated areas.

 

[American123]

I'm aware of the time Pre-NFA and I think citizens should be able to own machine guns without any hassles. But I'm talking we repeal all the laws on the books, where do we draw the line for private ownership of arms, Nukes? This whole discussion is theoretical talking points.

Rather absurd of a notion, a nuke can't discriminate whatsoever what it destroys, it doesn't target individuals, it provides wholesale destruction of an area. A firearm when used by a person provides the ability to place shots on specific targets.

This type of argument sounds similar to what liberals use, it's completely irrelevant. If anything, it serves as a counter argument to liberals because for all their compaints about personally owned firearms in America, the intention of the 2nd Amendement was that the populace would be equally armed to the government so that it served as a balancing agent if the government became tyrannical. That level playing field was gone a long time ago and the government has tanks, jets, drones, bombs, etc. while we have our "dangerous" rifles.

Rather absurd question OP. The nuke is more of a diplomatic agent than anything, the notion that "you attack me and I'll destroy your country so let's be peaceful instead" is what the nuke does.

And here's the funny part. You could hand many people the 'football' and it would never be a threat to anyone. Just like with the millions upon millions of guns owned in this country that never harm anyone every year.

 

[bolus]

The whole nukes question is dumb. Just think of what it would take to build a nuke from uranium deposits in the ground.

Lets say you are rich enough to pay for every step from the uranium mining to the manufacture and development of a nuclear weapon. Why make one? You would get killed the moment you use it. It would have no advantage for making you more money. No billionaire would be dumb enough to spend all that time making that much money only to spend it on a nuke. They buy politicians and have corporations that rule the world. Evil billionaires do not act like Bond villains. They buy huge yachts and buy sex traffic'd children, not nukes. North Korea has nukes and they have pretty much zero advantage over having no nukes.

Let say you want to buy one. Which giant conglomerate of a business would make any money selling Nukes to an individual? There is no profit in that.

It literally takes the investment of the time and money of an entire nation to build and maintain nukes.

Nukes are the Godwin's law of second amendment arguments.

 

[Will_White]

I agree that the nukes question is absurd, but it does demonstrate a practical limit on the second amendment.