National What is 2A absolutism?

[obesechess]

Tentatively, I think (1) restrictions on large arms are/could be constitutional under any of strict scrutiny, Heller, or Bruen/Rahimi, e.g. artillery, nukes, and (2) procurement, possession, and use of small arms is the core right contained in the 2A. Something I'm still thinking through, so I hold this provisionally.

Yeah, I'm not sure how far I'm willing to go with my thinking either. Should private citizens with sufficient funds be able to buy high explosives, tanks, figher jets, surface to air missiles, nukes? I would say "no" but I don't have any justification for that in the text of the second amendment.

I guess this is probably why Marbury v Madison happened, so knuckleheads like me wouldn't have to figure that one out.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

What is interesting , and important , to me at least , about the 2nd Amendment...
Is that it does not make a distinction with what Arms...one can keep or bear.

Nowhere does it say :
"....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms of certain types and only for specific purposes , shall not be infringed."
Andy

 

[Jay Walk]

Apparently, that is not clear enough

 

[bcp]

Some say it only applies to "bearable" arms. Yet some people own old tanks, and could get a DD permit for the main gun, I suppose.

Many fighters and bombers are in private hands.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Bruce

 

[wired]

I guess I define "chemical weapon" as "a chemical that is being used as a weapon" and don't really understand the distinction.

My larger point is that I don't think anyone should have certain types of weapons, especially not those that cause indiscriminate harm to people, and I'd prefer if the government and law enforcement were LESS militarized, but if the government can use them against its citizens then its citizens should be able to have those things too. Seems consistent to me, but would probably have to think on it more.

I'm not sure the government cares about your definition.

It wasn't used as a weapon. It was used as a crowd dispersal agent. Its meant to be a mild nuisance. Less of a nuisance than CS. Something not meant to injure or kill you although again , if it hits you on the head etc . Its meant to get you to go home. Not a weapon. If they wanted to use a weapon they'd use something like GB, GH, VX, phosgene, any number of blister agents, chlorine etc.

You can buy smoke bombs. They aren't weapons

 

[CamoDeafie]

Tentatively, I think (1) restrictions on large arms are/could be constitutional under any of strict scrutiny, Heller, or Bruen/Rahimi, e.g. artillery, nukes, and (2) procurement, possession, and use of small arms is the core right contained in the 2A. Something I'm still thinking through, so I hold this provisionally.

You used to be able to get private warships fully armed as well as cannons.. until the NFA happened (destructive devices).

There are privately owned warplane fleets with full operational capabilities, because their owners have the ATF permits/licenses (Destructive Devices and SOT licenses) for contracted force on force training in the US, like Draken International. Edit; these aren't WW1-Korea era birds, they own F-18s and MiGs and Saab Drakens.

Also, several private collectors own fully operational tanks in the US (again, NFA tax stamped on weapons, usually pre-86 machine guns and sometimes Destructive Devices like tank cannons)

 

[nammac]

As I said in my first post here...
We already have over 20,000 firearm laws , bans , restrictions , regulations , etc...in place.
If those were the answer...then there wouldn't be a problem.

Limits and the like on a Right do nothing but undermine that Right.

I am sick and damn tired of being the one who has to deal with the consequences of someone else's actions.

I have not harmed anyone with my firearms....yet I have to :
Deal with a waiting period...magazine and firearm restrictions ...needing a permit to carry concealed ...require a licensed FFL to conduct a firearm transaction....and not only that , I have to pay for the background check.....
All because of some criminal...and their actions..

I have not broken the law...yet I am coerced into obeying laws , bans and the like , that punish me...not the criminal
Again...I am tired of having to "Grin and bear it....in order to enjoy a Right.
Andy

My friend, that is socialism. All pay for the actions of a few. How about just punishing those few who commit the offensive actions? Jail is a good start.. Dungeon is a better option…

 

[Stomper]

I am both a free speech absolutist and a communist, but you and I are united in our affinity for malted milk balls. Every day we find new common ground with our neighbors.

Socialism is just communism-lite.... kinda like dipping your toe in the water to see if you like having some elite central committee (D.C. in this case) decide what you can do, how much you can earn, how much you are "allowed" to keep of your earnings, etc...

 

[Koda]

The idea there should be reasonable restrictions on a right assumes there is no agenda to remove that right. The reality is gun control is founded on a prohibition model, and there is only 1 reason to disarm someone...

 

[GrayGoose]

How about just punishing those few who commit the offensive actions? Jail is a good start.. Dungeon is a better option…

Or public hangings. Or guillotines... Something more than what's happening to them today.

 

[nammac]

Or public hangings. Or guillotines... Something more than what's happening to them today.

Exactly! There's people walking the streets with multiple firearms violations who've been through the system multiple times. Why on earth are they still free to continue to commit crimes, to ply their criminal trade…. Bring back public stockades for gawd's sake….

 

[CamoDeafie]

Bring back public stockades for gawd's sake….

I dunno man, pillories have seen a huge increase of being built and used by the BDSM community..... Do you really want to see people having sex in pillories in the public!?

 

[Stomper]

I dunno man, pillories have seen a huge increase of being built and used by the BDSM community..... Do you really want to see people having sex in pillories in the public!?

Man.... I do NOT EVER want to see your web-browser history!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Man.... I do NOT EVER want to see your web-browser history!

It's rather....tame

 

[mithrandir]

What is interesting , and important , to me at least , about the 2nd Amendment...
Is that it does not make a distinction with what Arms...one can keep or bear.

Nowhere does it say :
"....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms of certain types and only for specific purposes , shall not be infringed."
Andy

I've been looking into founding era linguistic corpora re this topic, and it appears the founders may have commonly distinguished between arms and e.g. artillery. Still early in my investigations, but that would provide a history and tradition (see Bruen) that grounds the distinction.

You used to be able to get private warships fully armed as well as cannons.. until the NFA happened (destructive devices).

There are privately owned warplane fleets with full operational capabilities, because their owners have the ATF permits/licenses (Destructive Devices and SOT licenses) for contracted force on force training in the US, like Draken International. Edit; these aren't WW1-Korea era birds, they own F-18s and MiGs and Saab Drakens.

Also, several private collectors own fully operational tanks in the US (again, NFA tax stamped on weapons, usually pre-86 machine guns and sometimes Destructive Devices like tank cannons)

The key detail for me is that the ability to acquire and own that equipment is, in fact, restricted. They are restricted in a way I don't think could ever be constitutional for small arms but for a constitutional amendment, but I think is constitutionally permissible for what I'm terming "large arms."

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I've been looking into founding era linguistic corpora re this topic, and it appears the founders may have commonly distinguished between arms and e.g. artillery. Still early in my investigations, but that would provide a history and tradition (see Bruen) that grounds the distinction.

The key detail for me is that the ability to acquire and own that equipment is, in fact, restricted. They are restricted in a way I don't think could ever be constitutional for small arms but for a constitutional amendment, but I think is constitutionally permissible for what I'm terming "large arms."

Privately owned cannon was one of the things that the English Army wanted to confiscate on the 19th of April 1775.

In any event...there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that specifies or limits what Arms can be owned
Andy
Edit to add....
The Bill of Rights is about what you are limiting the government to do...and not about the government limiting you.

 

[Stomper]

Privately owned cannon was one of the things that the English Army wanted to confiscate on the 19th of April 1775.

In any event...there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that specifies or limits what Arms can be owned
Andy
Edit to add....
The Bill of Rights is about what you are limiting the government to do...and not about the government limiting you.

There you go again with them "negative rights" that Obama was whining about!

 

[nwslopoke]

Private armies have been and are a thing. For the US they are funded and controlled by the government for the most part. Black Water, for instance.

I don't recall which Rober Boron like Vanderbilt had beef with another in South America. They were sending their Private armies to fight other nations (something about a train across Panama before the canal). Not fighting on US soil but American based.

 

[obesechess]

Socialism is just communism-lite.... kinda like dipping your toe in the water to see if you like having some elite central committee (D.C. in this case) decide what you can do, how much you can earn, how much you are "allowed" to keep of your earnings, etc...

View attachment 2129365

I promise I know the meaning of the word I used to describe my own political beliefs, thank you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just posting this as an FYI kinda thing....

When I post something like my thoughts or ideas on a highly volatile , controversial or debatable topic....
They are my thoughts...and ideas....they don't have to be yours or agreed to.
Also...that does not mean that I am "right" and anyone who thinks differently is "wrong".

It does mean that I am right...for how I think , feel , what I know , based on my experiences....etc...
Which may not be the same for others...and that is okay...I ain't out to change minds or prove anything.
Andy