What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[cigars]

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.

Case in point....

NEWS WIRE, Perth-
Steven McKackle, recent inventor of the hand grenade boomerang was found dead in a testing field next to his laboratory.

 

[Boboclown]

I think another reasonable thing is to have the people who want gun control, to walk in the woods where wild boar are common without a gun then come tell us we need gun laws.

 

[DunRanull]

I think another reasonable thing is to have the people who want gun control, to walk in the woods where wild boar are common without a gun then come tell us we need gun laws.

Or take a walk thru any of the "Inner cities" found within any of our larger population centers.
To the OP I would add that all single-person carried and operated FIRE ARMS should be legal. Not going to get into the bombs and other high-explosives tangent. We know what ARMS are for the purposes of the Second. Just sayin...

 

[Boboclown]

Or take a walk thru any of the "Inner cities" found within any of our larger population centers.

They'll just blame the gun.

 

[Argonaut]

Off course........that is the central question. It is up to the Supreme Court to be the final decider of the definition. The same as any other constitutional issue. So...........remember that the next time you are tempted to vote for a presidential candidate other than a Republican. It is always counter productive even if some minority party individual catches your interest. (Like Ross Perot) all it does is promotes the chances of the liberal Democrat to win so we can get more judges like Elena Kagan instead of Neil Gorsuch. With a little luck, we can re-elect Trump and do away with several octogenarian liberals and get more like the great Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch that will protect our rights.

 

[Boboclown]

I'd rather vote for a clown like me. Might mean more works of art coming from other countries in the form of guns too...

Who knows what clowns like me would do for the freedom of the people.

 

[Argonaut]

I'd rather vote for a clown like me. Might mean more works of art coming from other countries in the form of guns too...

Who knows what clowns like me would do for the freedom of the people.

So.....you deserve what you get........Clinton and Obama.......how does that help the cause?

 

[DunRanull]

I'd rather vote for a clown like me. Might mean more works of art coming from other countries in the form of guns too...

Who knows what clowns like me would do for the freedom of the people.

I'd like to see a couple of boatloads of artworks come in from China and the former eastern bloc countries...

 

[Boboclown]

So.....you deserve what you get........Clinton and Obama.......how does that help the cause?

How are they clowns like me?

They're not even clowns. We clowns dare not associate with those two.

 

[Argonaut]

How are they clowns like me?

They're not even clowns. We clowns dare not associate with those two.

 

[Boboclown]

View attachment 469537

He's just pretending. You can tell because the makeup comes off.

 

[shibbershabber]

Practical limitations on the 2A?

Well... I would compromise with it meaning any weapon that an individual can operate on his own against a man or vehicle.

So no more NFA for sure. Probably not missiles, rockets, mortars, etc though. If you can carry it on your own and fire it without assistance... you're good to go

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The Second Amendment simply states "Arms"...
Which according to Mr. Webster means:
Weapons and ammunition , armaments.
In the 18th and 19th century Arms also referred to anything related to weapons and their equipment:
Cartridges , cartridge boxes , knives , tomahawks , bayonets and yes even cannon...
Part of the arms that the English were after in Concord that fateful April 19th , 1775 was a cannon...which was privately owned...but used by the local militia....

The Second Amendment makes no distinction between "Arms"...it does not state :
Any Arms but these...or Arms of this type , but not of that type....
It says in part... "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As for what type of arms I should be able to own...?
Anything I could afford , which the military considers a "small arm"...would be fine.
In fact in the 18th and 19th century , one could be fined for showing up to militia muster without the proper arms and equipment.
Strange how times have changed....

We already have restrictions...that many think are already "infringing" :
Universal Background Checks...
The need for a concealed carry permit / license...
Existing bans on what features a firearm has...
Magazine restrictions...
Waiting periods...

All of the above are in place in many areas of the country and all are debated as being needed or as an infringement...
Maybe we should look at what we have in place already to see what is working or not , as the case may be , before adding anymore restrictions....
Andy

 

[Herb g]

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

Wondering how long the wait would be for the tax stamp...

 

[nwslopoke]

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

By private citizens do you include billionaires. There was a time in US history where men who would be billionaires today did have private armies. Before the Panama Canal there were fights to build a railway down there. Also there was a wealthy American that tried to take over Nicaragua or Honduras (it's been 20 years since I followed that stuff). Just asking, what is a private citizen? Even today there are many Americans owning heavy military artillery. It hasn't been a problem. Machine guns are not a problem.

 

[slimmer13]

Reasonable restrictions? I would say it's reasonable to restrict the government from possessing any "arms" that the citizenry is unable to possess.

 

[Argonaut]

Reasonable restrictions? I would say it's reasonable to restrict the government from possessing any "arms" that the citizenry is unable to possess.

There are many anti gun folks afraid to take second amendment issues to the Supreme Court for fear they would rule that way and nullify all existing gun laws. They may be correct.

 

[MountainBear]

Off course........that is the central question. It is up to the Supreme Court to be the final decider of the definition. The same as any other constitutional issue. So...........remember that the next time you are tempted to vote for a presidential candidate other than a Republican. It is always counter productive even if some minority party individual catches your interest. (Like Ross Perot) all it does is promotes the chances of the liberal Democrat to win so we can get more judges like Elena Kagan instead of Neil Gorsuch. With a little luck, we can re-elect Trump and do away with several octogenarian liberals and get more like the great Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch that will protect our rights.

Always remember, it was the great Antonin Scalia who penned the Heller decision and left the door open to restriction.

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment are not unlimited..." "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

This is by one of the most popular conservative SCJ of all time. So while we may not want to hear it, there is now and will likely forever be "reasonable restrictions" on the 2A. Our best hope as gun owners is to work our best to keep that "reasonable" benchmark from slipping any further down the slippery slope, to inch it back up when we can, and to continue to challenge blatant violations like 43.

You all might not enjoy hearing this, but understand that I'm saying this with the best of intentions of preserving the 2A for my children. If we continue to fight from the point of shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed (no matter how much WE all agree on this), then we will get further marginalized.

So, challenge things like waiting periods, minimum purchases, mandatory BGC, and bans of certain classes of firearms. But the nuke talk, while funny, serves no real purpose in the grand scheme. It just makes us look like kooks.

Have a great day, God bless!

 

[Geardo]

. 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

Some one has taken the red pill! #pgate

 

[Argonaut]

Always remember, it was the great Antonin Scalia who penned the Heller decision and left the door open to restriction.

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment are not unlimited..." "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

This is by one of the most popular conservative SCJ of all time. So while we may not want to hear it, there is now and will likely forever be "reasonable restrictions" on the 2A. Our best hope as gun owners is to work our best to keep that "reasonable" benchmark from slipping any further down the slippery slope, to inch it back up when we can, and to continue to challenge blatant violations like 43.

You all might not enjoy hearing this, but understand that I'm saying this with the best of intentions of preserving the 2A for my children. If we continue to fight from the point of shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed (no matter how much WE all agree on this), then we will get further marginalized.

So, challenge things like waiting periods, minimum purchases, mandatory BGC, and bans of certain classes of firearms. But the nuke talk, while funny, serves no real purpose in the grand scheme. It just makes us look like kooks.

Have a great day, God bless!

In that decision Scalia defined enough flexibility in the 2nd to allow it to survive. The same as the first amendment. Rules with too much rigidity quickly become impossible to defend and fall. Positions so rigid as to become unpopular and silly seldom last long in any society. That is what you are up against. Flexibility. In every constitutional amendment has been evident since the beginning. Even the 18th amendment allowed the production and use of alcohol in prescribed ways. If the law becomes so rigid as to loose popularity it will surely be repealed and you will have the risk of loosing it all. Another thing that occurred with the 18th amendment.