Should citizens have the right to own grenades?

[nicholascoppola]

Does the 2nd amendment right extend to explosives?

[jblosser]

Rights are not a "should", they're a "do", unless you think natural law cares about the results of a poll.

[pcosmar]

Absolutely


Tench Coxe, quotes about Militia:
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.


Cockrum v. State, quotes about Militia:
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

[nicholascoppola]

Sorry meant do.

Ok, assuming everyone will vote yes to any weapon, that what would be your defense to the liberal argument that it would put dangerous weapons into the hands of psychopaths.

[Danke]

Absolutely

Wrong.


Right: Absolutely Fucking YES!!!

[constituent]

Sorry meant do.

Ok, assuming everyone will vote yes to any weapon, that what would be your defense to the liberal argument that it would put dangerous weapons into the hands of psychopaths.

ever heard of the army?

[pcosmar]

Sorry meant do.

Ok, assuming everyone will vote yes to any weapon, that what would be your defense to the liberal argument that it would put dangerous weapons into the hands of psychopaths.

They already do, That is what we are concerned about.

.http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/07/07/policestate-seattle-vs-wto.jpg

http://photogo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/kentstate_dead4.jpg

http://judicial-inc.biz/waco.jpg

Any other questions?

[nicholascoppola]

Nah, I'm good thanks for the answers. I just didn't know what was the view on explosives and such on this forum.

[devil21]

I voted no. I assume it meant M67 and similar, not M203 tubes. I don't think the Founders envisioned every citizen having highly explosive devices in their homes as part of the 2nd. I do think they should be legal for people that have proper training and proper storage though, even if they are just citizens, not military or LE.

[pcosmar]

I voted no. I assume it meant M67 and similar, not M203 tubes. I don't think the Founders envisioned every citizen having highly explosive devices in their homes as part of the 2nd. I do think they should be legal for people that have proper training and proper storage though, even if they are just citizens, not military or LE.

In the days of the founders the citizens owned the Cannons that the Revolutionary war was fought with.
They also commonly owned explosives.
In fact until a relatively few years ago You could buy dynamite.
I remember stump blasting in my youth. and some people fished with it. :D

[cthulhufan]

I voted yes. I don't think the Spirit of the amendment is such that it precludes anything necessary to keep the federal government from thinking they can just march 'their' army down your streets and tell you what they envision your 'rights' to be and which ones they'll be taking away today. Perhaps I have horribly misconstrued their intentions?

[ghengis86]

In the days of the founders the citizens owned the Cannons that the Revolutionary war was fought with.
They also commonly owned explosives.
In fact until a relatively few years ago You could buy dynamite.
I remember stump blasting in my youth. and some people fished with it. :D

alright, let's take this to its logical conclusion; if they have the money do citizens have the right to own tanks? cruise missles? nukes?

edit: yes, of course! if they can effectively protect it and store it of course.

[SWATH]

alright, let's take this to its logical conclusion; if they have the money do citizens have the right to own tanks? cruise missles? nukes?

edit: yes, of course! if they can effectively protect it and store it of course.

yes, and by the way you can right now, it just has to be registered and the taxes paid on it.

[ghengis86]

yes, and by the way you can right now, it just has to be registered and the taxes paid on it.

which it are you speaking of? all the above?

[SWATH]

which it are you speaking of? all the above?

Tanks with working guns, missiles, don't know about nukes though but I doubt that one will be approved.

[Danke]

alright, let's take this to its logical conclusion; if they have the money do citizens have the right to own tanks? cruise missles? nukes?

edit: yes, of course! if they can effectively protect it and store it of course.

I am not a purest.

If accidental discharge can affect your neighbors, then no. So those in rural country far away from neighbors should be able to posses larger, more destructive munitions. Nukes, with fallout, no way.

[devil21]

In the days of the founders the citizens owned the Cannons that the Revolutionary war was fought with.
They also commonly owned explosives.
In fact until a relatively few years ago You could buy dynamite.
I remember stump blasting in my youth. and some people fished with it. :D

I lump the cannons in with the guns. Projectile devices, in other words, used to ward off invaders/tyrants. Dynamite has many legitimate uses other than throwing it at people. I understand the essence of your points but I think there are differences.

I think the real question is at what point does the 2nd not protect "weapons of mass destruction".

[pcosmar]

I do not understand what is so hard to understand. The founders were very plain and adamant in their views.

Alexander Hamilton, quotes about Militia:
Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ... The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.


Tench Coxe, quotes about Militia:
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.


Patrick Henry, quotes about Militia:
The great object is, that every man be armed.


The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. – Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)

I added emphasis to some parts that seem to be ignored.

[pcosmar]

The last time I checked Both hand grenades and Projectile grenades were carried by soldiers.
I have even known similar devices to be used by police.

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ..

Anything that can possibly be used against me, my home, my community or my state should fall into this definition. I have the right to be equally armed and capable of defending.

That was the intent.
Sadly, we have fallen far below the intent.

[ryanduff]

Grenades? No. They're WMD's according to the Government. I believe that makes you a terrorist sir.

J/K ;)

[pcosmar]

Grenades? No. They're WMD's according to the Government. I believe that makes you a terrorist sir.

J/K ;)

I am sure that they think so too. :p

[Toureg89]

Rights are not a "should", they're a "do", unless you think natural law cares about the results of a poll.

came here to post this.

the OP phrases it as if the government grants us our rights.

this predisposition is incorrect, although it is held by the majority of sheeple.

gov. doesnt grant us rights, they are supposed to only protect them.

[Toureg89]

They also commonly owned explosives.
In fact until a relatively few years ago You could buy dynamite.
this is true.

the only reason why people dont commonly own explosives today is because theres been a xx yrs for LE to enforce legislation that makes it illegal for us to own it.

but it was commonly used and controlled by civilians with no gov. regulation.

and psychopaths can already manufacture explosives from house hold goods.

why do they need to specifically use grenades or mil. grade explosives.

[youngbuck]

Yes. There's no reason to debate, simply yes. Ideally the people would have our own civilian ran navy and air force.

[cthulhufan]

Yes. There's no reason to debate, simply yes. Ideally the people would have our own civilian ran navy and air force.
Yes.

[Pericles]

I voted no. I assume it meant M67 and similar, not M203 tubes. I don't think the Founders envisioned every citizen having highly explosive devices in their homes as part of the 2nd. I do think they should be legal for people that have proper training and proper storage though, even if they are just citizens, not military or LE.

Who decides what constitutes "proper training"? That is the same language gun control advocates use for any excuse to prevent other people from having what those control advocates do not want people to have.

As to the psychopath argument - why would one suppose that the type of people who disregard laws pertaining to theft, murder, rape, tax evasion, and you name it would be deterred from their actions by a law restricting access to weapons?

A free people must be proficient in the use of arms of types used in modern warfare. In the course of history, the right to arms has separated the citizen from the subject, the rulers from the ruled and the master from the slave. Which do you want to be?

[devil21]

Who decides what constitutes "proper training"? That is the same language gun control advocates use for any excuse to prevent other people from having what those control advocates do not want people to have.

As to the psychopath argument - why would one suppose that the type of people who disregard laws pertaining to theft, murder, rape, tax evasion, and you name it would be deterred from their actions by a law restricting access to weapons?

A free people must be proficient in the use of arms of types used in modern warfare. In the course of history, the right to arms has separated the citizen from the subject, the rulers from the ruled and the master from the slave. Which do you want to be?

But it still goes back to the point I made earlier about where does 2A stop? When I think of bearing arms, I think of rifles, pistols, ammunition, gun accessories, knives, and even the aforementioned cannons, etc. Not Exocet missiles, 10 pounds of C4, and shrapel grenades. There is still a point where the safety of society has to be considered. I guess we have different ideas on where that point is. Proper training means the person knows how to safely store and use such materials. How that would be determined is beyond me. The free market would find a solution like always. Regardless, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live next to a guy with a stockpile of plastic explosives in his basement that he keeps "just in case".

(Btw, your last paragraph is a bunch of rah-rah Braveheart junk. No one is speaking out against the 2nd. Far from it. But I think I can be a free citizen with a shitload of arms. I just dont need high explosives. If possession of frag grenades separates a citizen from a slave, then I'd be willing to bet you are a slave too.)

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

I voted no. I assume it meant M67 and similar, not M203 tubes. I don't think the Founders envisioned every citizen having highly explosive devices in their homes as part of the 2nd. I do think they should be legal for people that have proper training and proper storage though, even if they are just citizens, not military or LE.

The founders, and this is a fact, meant for the citizens to be as fully armed as the military. Actually, more so, since many thought a standing army was a direct threat to liberty and a free state. Many of the state constitutions include a clause warning of standing armies.

[Chosen]

http://photogo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/kentstate_dead4.jpg

Why is she crying? Because that hippie is sleeping in the street? I don't get it.

[heavenlyboy34]

But it still goes back to the point I made earlier about where does 2A stop? When I think of bearing arms, I think of rifles, pistols, ammunition, gun accessories, knives, and even the aforementioned cannons, etc. Not Exocet missiles, 10 pounds of C4, and shrapel grenades. There is still a point where the safety of society has to be considered. I guess we have different ideas on where that point is. Proper training means the person knows how to safely store and use such materials. How that would be determined is beyond me. The free market would find a solution like always. Regardless, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live next to a guy with a stockpile of plastic explosives in his basement that he keeps "just in case".

(Btw, your last paragraph is a bunch of rah-rah Braveheart junk. No one is speaking out against the 2nd. Far from it. But I think I can be a free citizen with a shitload of arms. I just dont need high explosives. If possession of frag grenades separates a citizen from a slave, then I'd be willing to bet you are a slave too.)

It stops where the government does. If the government disarms, I will end my call for private ownership of WMDs and heavy arms. ;)

[Kludge]

Why is she crying? Because that hippie is sleeping in the street? I don't get it.

:eek: :mad:


Really....?!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

[Pericles]

What we really need are Claymore mines.:D

[Chosen]

:eek: :mad:


Really....?!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
I was joking.

http://photogo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/kentstate_dead4.jpg

If I was a National guard member I would have hit the guy in the foreground to the right. You know, the guy who looks like the older kid from the Bad News Bears. The one who had issues with his dad and wouldn't play? But finally decides to get in the game and help everyone out? They shot the wrong guy I think.

[Kludge]

If I was a National guard member I would have hit the guy in the foreground to the right. You know, the guy who looks like the older kid from the Bad News Bears. The one who had issues with his dad and wouldn't play? But finally decides to get in the game and help everyone out? They shot the wrong guy I think.

Don't joke about that shit, man. Murder is serious business (tee hee).

[Chosen]

Don't joke about that shit, man. Murder is serious business (tee hee).

It's okay to kill people if they are bad.

[Kludge]

It's okay to kill people if they are bad.

It really pisses me off when that jackass kid behind me on the plane kicks my seat.

[Pericles]

It's okay to kill people if they are bad.

or wearing the wrong uniforms

[Rael]

sure why not? they have legitimate defensive uses. I think there should be some reasonable restrictions...adults only, no criminals or mental patients, all that stuff.