19 Jun 2022 10:21 pm
I don't feel I'm being "vague" at all.SJConspirator » 19 Jun 2022, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑ I don’t understand, cuz you are vague.
“the right of self defense” is almost meaningless without more context. Self defense includes the right to kick a guy in the nuts? Shoot him if he is threatening you? Blow up his house? What, exactly?
My best friends dad, when we were growing up had a safe bigger than a gym locker. He kept some awesome firearms in there, including a mac 11 and a fully automatic uzi. The question here is, did the founders intend for the “right to bear arms” have any limitations on what KIND of “arms”, they didn’t specify…
the OP could very well be correct. If the founders did not have any qualms about citizens privately owning weaponry capable of ANY level of destruction, then we should all own nuclear weapons. But we cannot, legally, due to the NPT of which the US is signatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... ar_Weapons
Nor can a civilian legally buy a fighter jet like the F22.
however, we can legally own tanks, guns of any caliber, etc.
Changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time. As far as restrictions of WMD in the hands of civilians, I think we are at a good place right now. Do you?
The right of self-defense is exactly what it says: the right to defend yourself if you are attacked. If we have a right to life then we have the right to defend that life, and by extension the right to possess the most effective means by which to conduct that defense.
The discussion of Nuclear Arms inevitably makes me sigh; because yes, the Constitution does protect "arms". Sadly, we let the government do whatever it wanted to without challenge, when we should have demanded an honest and in depth discussion of the full breadth of the Second Amendment's guarantees once arms became as destructive as some modern ordnance has become.
In a discussion of the Founders, their intent is clearly illustrated in their writings. Jefferson stated that he felt it was "every American's right and duty to be at all times armed." They believed that the people themselves were part of the system of checks and balances, and if it came right down to it the idea that every American had access to access to equivalent armament to the average soldier.
As Tench Coxe so eloquently said:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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."
You say that "changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time." I say that while you might be right, the Constitution cannot be ignored simply because one finds it inconvenient. If we are to place restrictions upon a right that "shall not be infringed", then a Constitutional Amendment becomes necessary IMHO. Certainly, I don't think nuclear weapons should be in the hands of just anyone; but when it comes to small arms I do truly believe that all citizens do have the right to be armed, including with weapons such as the select-fire M4 that currently arms the majority of our troops.
1 Nomination
Hillary Clinton Jun 19, 2022
Go to original post on Jun 19, 2022 9:47pm