Does Government Have Right to Determine What Weapons People Can Own?

[m&p9]

Heres the VP in action trying to get our guns

 

[aireyc]

Doesn't matter what rights they have, we're way beyond that discussion. They will try whatever they can get away with.

 

[Rickman]

I believe that the government does not have rights, the people do. The government has the responsibility to establish and enforce laws that protect "We the People's" God given and Constitutionally identified Rights. Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[john_bud]

I believe that the government does not have rights, the people do. The government has the responsibility to establish and enforce laws that protect "We the People's" God given and Constitutionally identified Rights. Of course that is just my opinion.

While I agree with you, it doesn't matter as this government has morphed into a permanent ruling class. They have TAKEN the power from us by bribes, deception, and lies and will not relenquish it. Think I'm nuts? Who's in power in NY now? Who will be in power after the next election? And that after the horrible response to the storm damage that O promised would be sooooo wonderful.

Same with MD CA IL and the other dictacrat controlled states.

 

[dist1646]

I believe that the government does not have rights, the people do. The government has the responsibility to establish and enforce laws that protect "We the People's" God given and Constitutionally identified Rights. Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[jessebogan]

They have taken our power. Without our permission or consent. That means that they stole it. So, no matter what laws they write down, no matter what the black robed tyrants in the SCOTUS says, WE indeed have the final say. Disobey illegal laws, resist the usurpation of our rights,and make it clear that there will be consequences for them if they continue down the road that they are going. (electoral consequences not advocating any other) Although... if they come to your place of business, show them the door. Refuse to do business with companies that support them. They should feel very shunned in the community. Easy enough to do, and causes them no harm...I am well and truly tired of being dictated to and lectured to by a bunch of rented politicians that in every way are my inferior.

 

[Gyokusai]

Does Government Have Right to Determine What Weapons People Can Own?

Just about as much right to determine what car I drive... ie: no, up to a certain limit. The question has always been, what is that limit? IMHO all the stuff in these AWB or mag cap limits are nuts, but I'll concede that perhaps we don't have the right to own an RPG. Got to love defining gray areas...

 

[notme0255]

Just about as much right to determine what car I drive... ie: no, up to a certain limit. The question has always been, what is that limit? IMHO all the stuff in these AWB or mag cap limits are nuts, but I'll concede that perhaps we don't have the right to own an RPG. Got to love defining gray areas...

With just a suburban house to defend, no need for RPGS. However claymores are strictly defensive...

 

[crowleycr]

Joe looks to be half in the bag again.

 

[Markp]

Just about as much right to determine what car I drive... ie: no, up to a certain limit. The question has always been, what is that limit? IMHO all the stuff in these AWB or mag cap limits are nuts, but I'll concede that perhaps we don't have the right to own an RPG. Got to love defining gray areas...

No, the government doesn't have the right to restrict any weapon, including an RPG. What makes the RPG in your mind worse than anything else (say an 80mm mortar round, which is legal as a DD)?

No the founding fathers were clear, and most sensible people are also understanding, that "arms", means all arms and "shall not be infringed", means without limit. Back in the day it included cannon's, muskets, rifles, etc. Even today, if you want to you can still buy your own rifled artillery.

http://steencannons.com/prices/rifle-version-11000-00/

Where is the limits on what arms you can own in the second amendment? Show it to me? If I want to own a Sherman tank, an A-10, a damn Apache Helicopter, or an artillery piece, I can!

Why, because my right to bear arms IS not limited by the constitution, it's limited by what I can afford. There are plenty of privately owned destructive devices in this country. Like it or not. As there well should be. It's called freedom, and it's not for pussies.

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on where there are limits, the limits are easy. Does my owning of a particular weapon system infringe on the rights of another person? If not, back the f-ck off. I would state that you could successfully argue against a nuke because of the radiation that it generates natively and the radiation that if detonated it would spread. That would infringe on the liberties of others, and that's where the line is! Had the found fathers said, "small arms", "handguns", "pointy sticks", "non-projectile weapons", or some other ludicrous limitation, perhaps then we'd have a limit to establish. However, they didn't, and that was INTENTIONAL.

Mark

 

[bbguns]

Take a trip back to 1789...
The fledgling nation, originally bound by Articles of Confederation, had just thrown off the yoke of an oppressive British government. When creating the nation, the founders stated, quite clearly, that the people 'are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'
After defeating the British, the representatives met to forge a new nation and drafted the Constitution to delineate how power and authority would be divided between people and their state and federal governments. As many did not trust government (go figure), they felt compelled to spell out various rights...these became the original Amendments in the form of the Bill of Rights. Their explanation is found in the preamble...

'THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.'

What is important (and what has been ignored or forgotten by 'progressives') is that the founders believed that all rights exist for the people, not through government grants but by basic existence (Nature, Creator...). This was completely different than the prevailing belief in Europe, that government grants various freedoms to people and can restrict them when convenient.

In other words, the Bill of Rights is not a declaration of 'privileges' granted to the people by a benevolent government. Instead, it was written to clarify and codify 10 of the most controversial rights (at that time) that the founders feared a future government would seek to limit.

Ironically, we face the very things the founders feared...that a government would grant itself power that it has no right to claim, that it would seek to control and suppress behavior, beliefs, and freedoms it deems a threat to its world view, and that the awareness of the people would be so dulled that it could achieve the collossal power grab in plain sight and with the blessings of the very people it seeks to control.

To answer the OP's question...where does the Constitution grant the government the right to determine which arms are suitable for the citizens? Is it reasonable to make certain very destructive items (the anti groups like to use nukes as an example) difficult to obtain? Maybe, and I suspect most people aren't opposed to this.
The problem, once again, is two-fold...where does this authority come from and how do we ensure this doesn't become the slippery slope?

 

[bpSchoch]

"Bear Arms" are defensive weapons that are carried for defense (Blacks Law), so nukes aren't defensive weapons. Neither are other bombs, grenades etc.