2nd amendment definition of "arms"

[Haides]

And yet, they continue to have full auto available to them anyway.

You don't restrict the capability of your arms, most especially if you know you're going to be taking them into combat where your life and the lives of your compatriots will depend on them.

So when you ask "is X necessary" in the context of the arms one would be wielding against an opponent, you're asking the wrong question. The right question is "is there any possibility that X might prove useful". For our armed forces as regards the question of full auto, quite clearly the answer is "yes, it might prove useful". Because in battle, it has proven useful. And that means that the answer is the same for the militia.

If an enemy might possess a given weapon or given weapon capability, then you need to, as well, if only to even the odds. This is what the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect. It is moronic to claim that the founders intended the militia to be at any disadvantage in arms against the opponents they might be facing, most especially in light of their mission: to preserve the security of a free state. As I stated before, failure of that mission means the death of liberty and of the very purpose for which the country was founded. It is idiocy of the highest order to believe that the founders intended to see the militia fail in that duty, and yet that is exactly what one is arguing if one argues that the militia shouldn't have at least the same weapons as any enemy it might face.

Good enough for me

That is not exactly accurate (regarding Army training). The army trains it's soldiers to use burst mode for suppressive fire. True, it is less accurate, but it does not have to be for this purpose. Likewise, the 50 cal training teaches one to only use bursts vs full auto... this keeps it more accurate and does not overheat the barrel.

As to what arms are necessary to combat tyranny... the same (or better) arms as ones opponent. No one ever went into battle regretting their superior armaments.

Good to know, thank you. Yeah suppressive fire is about the only good reason I can think of to use automatic fire.

The person who wins will, more than likely, be the person to go pew pew more.

Nice summary of the above lol

 

[Jim12]

Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort, and you'd implicitly be claiming that the founders were idiots as well.




Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

Well stated.

 

[JohnnyE]

Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort, and you'd implicitly be claiming that the founders were idiots as well.


Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

And yet, they continue to have full auto available to them anyway.

You don't restrict the capability of your arms, most especially if you know you're going to be taking them into combat where your life and the lives of your compatriots will depend on them.

So when you ask "is X necessary" in the context of the arms one would be wielding against an opponent, you're asking the wrong question. The right question is "is there any possibility that X might prove useful". For our armed forces as regards the question of full auto, quite clearly the answer is "yes, it might prove useful". Because in battle, it has proven useful. And that means that the answer is the same for the militia.

If an enemy might possess a given weapon or given weapon capability, then you need to, as well, if only to even the odds. This is what the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect. It is moronic to claim that the founders intended the militia to be at any disadvantage in arms against the opponents they might be facing, most especially in light of their mission: to preserve the security of a free state. As I stated before, failure of that mission means the death of liberty and of the very purpose for which the country was founded. It is idiocy of the highest order to believe that the founders intended to see the militia fail in that duty, and yet that is exactly what one is arguing if one argues that the militia shouldn't have at least the same weapons as any enemy it might face.

EXCELLENT WORK, SIR!

Excellent post. I attempt to have a discussions with folks, regarding the second amendment. Their failure to understand the second amendment, as our sole differentiating factor to prevent tyranny. And thus our ability to have been one of the few countries to defeat tyranny and not bow down to the crown.

Because folks can’t envision the likelihood of it happening again they blindly accept government control over almost, if not every aspect of their lives, including their safety. Which to me is the beginning of accepting tyranny. And thus, the reason we must have the second amendment.

Without the second we are subject to not only tyranny (domestic) but also to outside forces (foreign).

We are a free society, but many would give up that freedom, to stop just one more shooting, save one more life. IT WONT STOP THEM ALL!! YOU CANT STOP THEM ALL!!

They just don’t understand. Rant over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What makes this so ironic is this sentiment comes from folks who are unsure about the status of their 401(k) between now and their retirement, yet they are so dead certain regarding the future of human beings and our governments as to bind themselves and their posterity, forever!

 

[Mark75H]

Staying off direct topic with the assault rifle theme, I am certain the ability to put down supressive fire in full auto was one of the reasons for Germany's original fast advance into Russia. I can only imagine repartiated Russian front linesmen being questioned about why they were overrun so easily by the Germans answering that their opponents had machine guns. And the following Soviet arms committee's decision to make their own assualt rifle was unanimous.

Veering back to full on topic - I never hear anyone commenting on the Second Amendment securing the right of private merchant ships and blockade runners to be armed with cannons, but we know this was the case. Congress and the early Presidents did not run out and say "You can't do that without permission!"

I contend that 2A DOES extend to artillery and always did. There is no verbage that restricts the right to hand held. If its there, I can't find it in those 27 plain words.

 

[Dammit_Man]

Staying off direct topic with the assault rifle theme, I am certain the ability to put down supressive fire in full auto was one of the reasons for Germany's original fast advance into Russia. I can only imagine repartiated Russian front linesmen being questioned about why they were overrun so easily by the Germans answering that their opponents had machine guns. And the following Soviet arms committee's decision to make their own assualt rifle was unanimous.

Veering back to full on topic - I never hear anyone commenting on the Second Amendment securing the right of private merchant ships and blockade runners to be armed with cannons, but we know this was the case. Congress and the early Presidents did not run out and say "You can't do that without permission!"

I contend that 2A DOES extend to artillery and always did. There is no verbage that restricts the right to hand held. If its there, I can't find it in those 27 plain words.

If you watch forgotten weapons on YouTube gun jesus talks quite a bit about the roots of the AK

 

[cowboy321]

Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort, and you'd implicitly be claiming that the founders were idiots as well.




Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

I do not believe that Americans should be able to buy hand grenades, C4 explosives, chemical weapons, Claymore mines, etc to prepare for the violent overthrow of the US Government. We will need these to battle US Marines and M1 Tanks? No thanks to this sort of mayhem. I am not going to war against Americans. Ballots not Bullets are wiser weapons to free our selves from "tyranny". Trump isn't that bad is he? I have been in combat and used standard infantry weapons in close range encounters with North Vietnamese troops. I don't need to see combat in the USA.

 

[kcbrown]

2nd amendment definition of "arms"

I do not believe that Americans should be able to buy hand grenades, C4 explosives, chemical weapons, Claymore mines, etc to prepare for the violent overthrow of the US Government. We will need these to battle US Marines and M1 Tanks? No thanks to this sort of mayhem. I am not going to war against Americans. Ballots not Bullets are wiser weapons to free our selves from "tyranny".

And when the government refuses to abide by the election results, or the election is rigged? What then?

The weapons you don't think people should have are the VERY SAME weapons the government WILL use against the population if the population attempts to free itself. So what do you suggest the citizenry use instead? Harsh language?

Trump isn't that bad is he?

Didn't say he was. But suppose he was? What then? Pray for some miraculous rescue by some benevolent foreign power?

I have been in combat and used standard infantry weapons in close range encounters with North Vietnamese troops. I don't need to see combat in the USA.

If you think those who believe that the people have the right to be free are chomping at the bit for combat, then you need to look harder. NOBODY actually WANTS to see combat (anyone who does really is crazy). But if the choice is between accepting the shackles of tyranny and fighting against it, what kind of supporter of liberty can you possibly be if you insist that we must do the former?

In any case, it is now manifestly clear that you believe the people shouldn't have the means to throw off tyranny. Which means you believe the people don't have the right to be free, since the only way they can assert that right in the first place is by fighting against a tyrannical government AND WINNING. And that REQUIRES that they be armed with the same kinds of arms as their oppressors are.

You also therefore must believe that the founders of the country shouldn't have fought the revolution in the first place, since combat on our soil is EXACTLY what they saw, and what was necessary for them to free themselves of tyranny.

Thanks for playing, and for at least being honest enough to show us how little regard you ACTUALLY have for liberty. May your chains set lightly upon you, should tyranny find its way here.


The mistake you insist we should make is one we get to make only once. If you claim it can't happen here, then you haven't learned a damned thing from history.

 

[Mark75H]

I believe that an armed populace makes tyranny less likely; concurrently, I believe the left is less afraid of our lawyers than our guns.

 

[Czechnologist]

And when the government refuses to abide by the election results, or the election is rigged? What then?




Didn't say he was. But suppose he was? What then? Pray for some miraculous rescue by some benevolent foreign power?





If you think those who believe that the people have the right to be free are chomping at the bit for combat, then you need to look harder. NOBODY actually WANTS to see combat (anyone who does really is crazy). But if the choice is between accepting the shackles of tyranny and fighting against it, what kind of supporter of liberty can you possibly be if you insist that we must do the former?

In any case, it is now manifestly clear that you believe the people shouldn't have the means to throw off tyranny. Which means you believe the people don't have the right to be free, since the only way they can assert that right in the first place is by fighting against a tyrannical government AND WINNING. And that REQUIRES that they be armed with the same kinds of arms as their oppressors are.

You also therefore must believe that the founders of the country shouldn't have fought the revolution in the first place, since combat on our soil is EXACTLY what they saw, and what was necessary for them to free themselves of tyranny.

Thanks for playing, and for at least being honest enough to show us how little regard you ACTUALLY have for liberty. May your chains set lightly upon you, should tyranny find its way here.


The mistake you insist we should make is one we get to make only once. If you claim it can't happen here, then you haven't learned a damned thing from history.

I don't know what would disturb me more: knowing exactly why you would callously disrespect a combat veteran's viewpoint the way you just did...or exactly what conditions would need to prevail for you to defend yourself with the types of armament you claim is your 2A right to own. In either case, I really don't care. Your credibility just went out the window with your mock patriotism.

Thanks for playing, indeed.

 

[teratos]

I don't know what would disturb me more: knowing exactly why you would callously disrespect a combat veteran's viewpoint the way you just did...or exactly what conditions would need to prevail for you to defend yourself with the types of armament you claim is your 2A right to own. In either case, I really don't care. Your credibility just went out the window with your mock patriotism.

Thanks for playing, indeed.

Sorry, feeling that combat veterans are always right is akin to saying people who didn't like Obama's policies are racist. Being a combat veteran does not make one infallible. A certain amount of respect is warranted, but that isn't absolute.

One of my closest friends is now the command Sgt. Major in charge of all Middle Eastern special ops (JSOC). He has spent over a decade operating in the Middle East. His opinions on what The People need is a bit different than our Maryland brother here.

 

[Czechnologist]

Sorry, feeling that combat veterans are always right is akin to saying people who didn't like Obama's policies are racist. Being a combat veteran does not make one infallible. A certain amount of respect is warranted, but that isn't absolute.

One of my closest friends is now the command Sgt. Major in charge of all Middle Eastern special ops (JSOC). He has spent over a decade operating in the Middle East. His opinions on what The People need is a bit different than our Maryland brother here.

Never meant to imply that combat veterans are always right but, they are always due some measure of respect, IMO. Disrespecting someone who put their ass on the frontline to provide our esteemed member with the freedom and liberty he so passionately advocates for reeks of irony.

 

[kcbrown]

I don't know what would disturb me more: knowing exactly why you would callously disrespect a combat veteran's viewpoint the way you just did...

Disrespecting his viewpoint? How?

He just blatantly came out and said that he doesn't believe the citizenry should have access to the very weapons they would need in order to prevail in a shooting war against a modern government! That means he doesn't believe the citizenry should have the means to prevail against such a tyrannical government, should things come to that. Presuming that I "disrespected" his viewpoint in the first place, what, in that, is there to respect in the first place? Do you truly "respect" the viewpoint that says that it is better to be a safe slave than to risk death for liberty?


He's entitled to his viewpoint. But his viewpoints have logical implications. Unless he's attempting to engage in doublethink (something that cannot logically work, as in the real world, only one option between two conflicting options can possibly be correct), his statement implies exactly what I said it does.

You may regard pointing that out in the cold and harsh manner that I did "disrespecting" his viewpoint, but that does nothing to change the implications of his viewpoint. Those are defined by logic applied to what he says he believes.

If you truly believe there is merit in his viewpoint, then by all means, please feel free to elaborate. I find nothing of merit in the view that we're better off being slaves than being armed with sufficiently capable weapons that we can prevail in a shooting war against a government that means to rule us.

or exactly what conditions would need to prevail for you to defend yourself with the types of armament you claim is your 2A right to own.

What do you mean, "what conditions"? Obviously, we're talking about the same kind of situation the founders of the country faced: being forced to throw off a well-armed malevolent government.

Again, to claim that it can't happen here is to disregard the lessons of history.


Either you believe the citizenry has the right to throw off a tyrannical government through force of arms, or you don't. Which is it?

 

[Czechnologist]

Either you believe the citizenry has the right to throw off a tyrannical government through force of arms, or you don't. Which is it?

Here's what I think: I think you should be able to defend yourself from every threat, no matter what it is or where it originates (tyrannical government, zombies, dickhead next-door neighbor), with anything you can afford to own. No restrictions whatsoever. If you can afford to go out and buy an M-1 tank, 4.2" Mortar, claymore mines, so fvcking be it. Little good it's gonna do ya without the training to use them properly. You'd pose a greater hazard to yourself than anyone you were pointing them at but, it shouldn't stop anyone who wants to own them. Who knows? You may only lose a couple of fingers or your hearing permanently while you're attempting to understand how they work. It's a small sacrifice to make, knowing that when doomsday comes, you're going out like a boss. I say, go for it.

 

[Czechnologist]

 

[kcbrown]

Well played, sir!

 

[kcbrown]

Here's what I think: I think you should be able to defend yourself from every threat, no matter what it is or where it originates (tyrannical government, zombies, dickhead next-door neighbor), with anything you can afford to own. No restrictions whatsoever. If you can afford to go out and buy an M-1 tank, 4.2" Mortar, claymore mines, so fvcking be it. Little good it's gonna do ya without the training to use them properly. You'd pose a greater hazard to yourself than anyone you were pointing them at but, it shouldn't stop anyone who wants to own them.

Guess what? I completely agree.

I said that having the same arms that the enemy might have is necessary for the militia to be able to prevail. I didn't say it was sufficient.

There's a reason the 2nd Amendment says "well regulated". The citizenry needs to be well trained in the use of the arms it would need to fend off an oppressive government. You'll never, ever get any disagreement from me on that.

But that is a very different thing from saying that the citizenry shouldn't have those arms. It is this which cowboy321 said. If he had said that they should have those arms but that they should also be trained in their use and that said training should be available at any time to anyone who wanted it, then I'd be in full agreement with him. But he didn't. He simply flat-out said they shouldn't have them.

A well-armed citizenry is no guarantee against tyranny. But an insufficiently-armed citizenry is a guarantee that tyranny will prevail.


As for the danger that such weaponry poses in the hands of people who aren't trained in their use, a society which places full responsibility upon a weapon's owner as to the consequences of its use or misuse in his hands is likely sufficient to take care of that problem. Yeah, some people will surely be harmed as a result. If you harm others as a result of your own ignorance, then it's off to prison with you. This ultimately becomes a self-correcting problem, more or less: the people who simply cannot be trusted to handle weapons safely or properly ultimately (sooner or later) get taken out of the population, and the people who are left are those who are responsible enough and knowledgeable enough to handle the weapons they possess safely. It is no different with anything else. Cars, aircraft, heavy machinery, anything.

 

[Onceuponatime]

Were you able to secure shells for that?....

 

[Czechnologist]

Guess what? I completely agree.

I said that having the same arms that the enemy might have is necessary for the militia to be able to prevail. I didn't say it was sufficient.

There's a reason the 2nd Amendment says "well regulated". The citizenry needs to be well trained in the use of the arms it would need to fend off an oppressive government. You'll never, ever get any disagreement from me on that.

But that is a very different thing from saying that the citizenry shouldn't have those arms. It is this which cowboy321 said. If he had said that they should have those arms but that they should also be trained in their use and that said training should be available at any time to anyone who wanted it, then I'd be in full agreement with him. But he didn't. He simply flat-out said they shouldn't have them.

A well-armed citizenry is no guarantee against tyranny. But an insufficiently-armed citizenry is a guarantee that tyranny will prevail.


As for the danger that such weaponry poses in the hands of people who aren't trained in their use, a society which places full responsibility upon a weapon's owner as to the consequences of its use or misuse in his hands is likely sufficient to take care of that problem. Yeah, some people will surely be harmed as a result. If you harm others as a result of your own ignorance, then it's off to prison with you. This ultimately becomes a self-correcting problem, more or less: the people who simply cannot be trusted to handle weapons safely or properly ultimately (sooner or later) get taken out of the population, and the people who are left are those who are responsible enough and knowledgeable enough to handle the weapons they possess safely. It is no different with anything else. Cars, aircraft, heavy machinery, anything.

We're pretty much on the same page. The only difference I can see is that I worry a bit less about defending myself from a tyrannical government and more about some scumbag breaking in my house with the intent to do harm.

Were you able to secure shells for that?....

Yeah, seller threw in a box of shells. Probably will need to re-load for that one, though.

 

[eruby]

Were you able to secure shells for that?....

 

[kohburn]

Sorry, feeling that combat veterans are always right is akin to saying people who didn't like Obama's policies are racist. Being a combat veteran does not make one infallible. A certain amount of respect is warranted, but that isn't absolute.

One of my closest friends is now the command Sgt. Major in charge of all Middle Eastern special ops (JSOC). He has spent over a decade operating in the Middle East. His opinions on what The People need is a bit different than our Maryland brother here.

we get into debates in my unit on occasion and both sides can never be right, someone is always wrong; combat patch or no combat patch.