I Need Your Help

[Dr. Evil]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

 

[GOYABEAN]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

Well I can't afford a iCBM I can't tow it behind my Chevy and I don't really need a weapon of mass destruction! My only need is to defend my family and loved ones my home and my self from whomever wants to cause me harm or change our way of life whether it be with a Black Evil Gun Shotgun or handgun or a knife

 

[Dr. Evil]

Well I can't afford a iCBM I can't tow it behind my Chevy and I don't really need a weapon of mass destruction! My only need is to defend my family and loved ones my home and my self from whomever wants to cause me harm or change our way of life weather it be with a Black Evil Gun Shotgun or handgun or a knife

Appreciate the response but I need a response specific to the question so I can shut this person up hopefully once and for all.

 

[GOYABEAN]

Appreciate the response but I need a response specific to the question so I can shut this person up hopefully once and for all.

Buy them a one-way ticket to Cali that's Cali Columbia

 

[Steal2B]

Like all other rights, our courts have confirmed our Amendment rights are not unlimited (eg crying FIRE in crowded movie theatre is not protected free speech and publishing blatantly known false slander is not protected under freedom of the press, and child sex abuse is not protected by freedom of religion). It is not a right to keep and carry any arm whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: Again for example, concealed firearm limitations have been upheld and our Courts support longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws have been upheld forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as court houses. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Reference: District of Columbia vs Heller

 

[ArmedCorgi]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

That his idea is completely absurd, invalid and misses the idea behind the 2 amendment by a mile for what should be very obvious reasons. Owning small arms for both personal and collective defense is the main purpose behind the amendment.

 

[spat]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

There is currently no actual prohibition in the law for a private individual to own either nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.

There are some pretty steep regulatory and licensing hurdles, but no actual complete prohibitions that I am aware of.

So, ask the dolt why he thinks we need to change a system that is apparently working fine ?

PS. The same goes for tanks, fighter jets, artillery, etc... if you've got the cash (and the lawyers to fill out all the paperwork) you can have all the heavy weapons you can afford.

The thing that keeps you from getting an Abrams or an F22 (and would force you to make due with an older generation tank, or fighter) is that the manufacturer won't sell you one, not that it's illegal for you to buy or own it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You could tell them that the 2A was created for militias "the people" to maintain the security of a free state. Protected arms are those that can be used to maintain a free state. Since you can't use nuclear weapons to maintain the security of your free state since you'd destroy the very state you are protecting, it isn't protected.

Also, Heller says that common use weapons are protected. Nuclear weapons aren't common use weapons.

 

[Justincase]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

I may be wrong as I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the second doesn't say anything about being armed to the same extent as the military. That's an interpretation some use, but is not stated directly, nor implied by the 2nd amendment. By making those erroneous interpretations, we open ourselves up to stupid counterpoints like these. I would use the common use argument. The second doesn't protect nukes and the like because they're not in common use by the people. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Dr. Evil]

You guys are awesome. Thanks!

 

[Justincase]

You could tell them that the 2A was created for militias "the people" to maintain the security of a free state. Protected arms are those that can be used to maintain a free state. Since you can't use nuclear weapons to maintain the security of your free state since you'd destroy the very state you are protecting, it isn't protected.

Also, Heller says that common use weapons are protected. Nuclear weapons aren't common use weapons.

How the? Dammit, you beat me to it by like ten seconds.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I would use the common use argument

I don't like that because that doesn't allow for any new innovation. Things can't become in common use unless they're legal.

Stun guns were uncommon when first invented, does that mean they could have been banned?

 

[Dr. Evil]

I don't like that because that doesn't allow for any new innovation. Things can't become in common use unless they're legal.

Stun guns were uncommon when first invented, does that mean they could have been banned?

Good point. How would you work an answer around that?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Good point. How would you work an answer around that?

Don't worry about it. I don't agree with the common use corrupt supreme court decision either but i use it to shut up libs.

 

[Steal2B]

Good point. How would you work an answer around that?

Common use phrasing from Heller grants a protected status not an only option available status. Also, because something is a new idea does not make it prohibited. Finally the 2nd Amendment did not include a list of only legal options.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Once again, thanks!

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

I may be wrong as I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the second doesn't say anything about being armed to the same extent as the military. That's an interpretation some use, but is not stated directly, nor implied by the 2nd amendment. By making those erroneous interpretations, we open ourselves up to stupid counterpoints like these. I would use the common use argument. The second doesn't protect nukes and the like because they're not in common use by the people. Take that for what it's worth.

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I think it does imply we should be armed enough to keep the military from being used to infringe upon our rights.

 

[zzrguy]

"I am the militia, the armed resistance against a tyrannical government my shear presents is the checks and balances to assure the government remains of the people for the people."
I do not own military grade weapon.

 

[E the massive]

No one needs 7 megatons to kill a, well shit, anything.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Good point. How would you work an answer around that?

It's important to note that Heller didn't say just those weapons in common use were protected. It left open the question as to whether uncommon use weapons would be protected. You could argue that. You get into a bunch of "what if's" and a bunch of other questions though.

If you want to focus on military weapons, you could argue that individuals in the military don't keep and bear nuclear arms. The military has them, but individuals don't. If they are insistent on a Second Amendment argument, push the conversation to defense. The Second Amendment was about defending yourself and country form internal and external threats. You can't defend yourself with a nuclear weapon. Well, I guess you could, but dropping a bomb on your people probably isn't the wisest idea. You could attack someone and claim it's preemptive defense, but that's not legal. You can't hunt the guy down that mugged you yesterday. There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers and the people they drew influence from that cover why people need defense.

 

[stokes]

if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military,

Where are we arming our citizenry to the same level as our military? The "evil guns" they equate to military arms are not.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Where are we arming our citizenry to the same level as our military? The "evil guns" they equate to military arms are not.

Nice catch.

 

[E the massive]

Where are we arming our citizenry to the same level as our military? The "evil guns" they equate to military arms are not.

Yup, we aint even arming the citizens to the level of the local police.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Where are we arming our citizenry to the same level as our military? The "evil guns" they equate to military arms are not.

Correct. The AR15 is not used by militaries so it cannot be a weapon of war.

 

[Phazer]

Yup, we aint even arming the citizens to the level of the local police.

But...many armed private citizens train more, and shoot better, with their firearms than most rank-and-file police.

 

[Phazer]

Correct. The AR15 is not used by militaries so it cannot be a weapon of war.

HEY! I heard on MSNBC that the AR-15 is more lethal than the M-16.

 

[E the massive]

Only the POTUS can authorize the use of nuclear weapons. The POTUS is a civilian. So technically a civilian citizen is in direct charge of the nuclear arsenal.

 

[E the massive]

But...many armed private citizens train more, and shoot better, with their firearms than most rank-and-file police.

True, but the discussion was about ownership/possession not training.

 

[CaseHardened]

How do you guys recommend answering this dolt?

" if we are to arm our citizenry to the same level as our military, would that not entail allowing nuclear weapons to be publicly sold as well? For some reason none of the gun enthusiasts I speak with who cite the second amendment as evidence as to why we should not restrict them do not address this very salient point. At this time in history, “arms” include nuclear and chemical weapons."

The Second Amendment was designed to enable Citizens to fight the Government.

If you think Washington DC is going to drop a Nuke on you, or use Nerve Gas on you, HELL YES we should be able to purchase them.

However.....

I'd say even as corrupt as DC is, the odds against them using these weapons against NYC or Boston is fairly remote. We did not even use Chemicals on the NAZIS.

So no, weapons that are impractical to use against the Government are not part of the 2A.

 

[Cooolone]

The question in itself... About what a "citizen" should or shouldn't be able to do is the problem...

The "Real" question is why does the Gov't need a multi-warhead nuclear missle and a cumulative Arsenal to destroy the entire world's major cities without even blinking an eye!

Gov't has limits... Not the "People"...

The argument is flawed because the person making such an asinine statement understands very little about our form of Gov't and our Constitution!

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission"
Ayn Rand...