The right to bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless you live in CA NY NJ MA DC...

[IronRooster2]

Just like an Ikeman to infringe on my second amendment.

I need a nuke to protect my freedoms. Only a pansy ass lib would deny me that right. Tyrants.

[tng83]

So do you want that everyone has the right to own any weapon ever? You want people to own tanks or nukes?

The second amendment was written in a time where people only had muskets. Try to think a little further and you´ll realize that laws like this have to be adjusted to the time we live in.

LOL at you and your sorry arguments.

[ThinkingLifter]

Is your username intended to be ironic?

No, it´s serious. Just like your username

[joecayse]

So in a hypothetical situation, an individual could for some reason pay the exorbitant amount of money to purchase, staff, maintain, and operate a nuclear weapon and delivery system therefore no AR-15's for Joe in Alabama. That's what this thread is about, right?

News flash about this tired strawman. The governments of the world, who apparently represent their populations, won't even allow other sovereign nations to own nuclear weapons. What exactly about Shall Not be Infringed being interpreted literally makes you think anyone would be okay with some billionaire dickhead owning a nuke?

[meenman83]

So in a hypothetical situation, an individual could for some reason pay the exorbitant amount of money to purchase, staff, maintain, and operate a nuclear weapon and delivery system therefore no AR-15's for Joe in Alabama. That's what this thread is about, right?

No it was started by some tool from Sweden acting like he knows best of the American Constitution.

[Ikeman83]

So why is a 'warship' ok but a submarine with nuclear missles not?

Submarine is ok. Submarine with cruise missiles would be ok. Submarine with nukes on those cruise missiles not ok.

[Meatie]

Submarine is ok. Submarine with cruise missiles would be ok. Submarine with nukes on those cruise missiles not ok.

*its not the cruise missile, stupid*

[Kiknskreem]

Submarine with cruise missiles would be ok. Submarine with nukes on those cruise missiles not ok.

The question was why is one ok but not the other?

It's not an individual weapon, and as such, is not relevant to militia service. Cannon? Howitzer? Tank? Warship? If you can crew it, you're good to go, but a nuke is not within the purview of civilian arms.

So if you can crew a submarine, you're good to go, so long as the missiles are non nuclear?

I don't see the logic here.

[elterrible987]

So do you want that everyone has the right to own any weapon ever? You want people to own tanks or nukes?

The second amendment was written in a time where people only had muskets. Try to think a little further and you´ll realize that laws like this have to be adjusted to the time we live in.

Location: Sweden







stay cucked

[SaviorSix]

1. Well regulated: in the terms defined by our forefathers, well regulated did not mean restricted as the liberals will have you believe as a means to government regulation. It meant "well equipped" or well capable to stand up to the the government or military.

2. Militia: Militia is the people. Free to come and go without military command. The people were the standing force to stop a tyrannical government.
.

And you're breaking this down based on what? Sounds like your own interpretation

[Ikeman83]

The question was why is one ok but not the other?




So if you can crew a submarine, you're good to go, so long as the missiles are non nuclear?

I don't see the logic here.

Because a Submarine is the equivalent of a privateer, which was legal for civilian ownership at the founding. It is a crew-served weapon. It is not a state weapon for use against another state.

[Ikeman83]

And you're breaking this down based on what? Sounds like your own interpretation

This is instructive: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


Also, the Militia Act of 1903 codifies the organization of the militia in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

You may be unaware, but as an able-bodied male aged 18-45, you are a member of the unorganized militia.

[Ikeman83]

There is not an absolute right to bear arms. How about banning the NRA?

How about banning the country's oldest civil rights organization? That would be silly. GTFO red.

[Ikeman83]

The NRA a civil rights organization? Good April Fools joke.


The NRA has increased crime dramatically. That's their legacy.

Homicide is down 50% since 1994. **** off.

[Kiknskreem]

Because a Submarine is the equivalent of a privateer, which was legal for civilian ownership at the founding. It is a crew-served weapon. It is not a state weapon for use against another state.

It seems like you're just fabricating a distinction that you think should exist.

"A submarine with ICBMs is ok. A submarine with nuclear ICBMs is not because nuclear weapons are reserved for state use."

[BK909]

1994 was the year assault weapons were banned. Check mate.

And I'm innnnnnnn......

[Ikeman83]

1994 was the year assault weapons were banned. Check mate.

If by "banned" you mean that arbitrary cosmetic features were enforced for 10 years, then yes. LOL.



Same gun, they even figured out that you could just permanently pin a carbine stock to a single position and put a muzzle brake on the gun.

Congratulations, the AWB of 1994 removed Bayonet lugs!

[Ikeman83]

It seems like you're just fabricating a distinction that you think should exist.

"A submarine with ICBMs is ok. A submarine with nuclear ICBMs is not because nuclear weapons are reserved for state use."

You could put non-nuclear ICBMs on your civilian submarine, although I'm not sure what possible purpose that would serve.


By the way, if you've got a few billion dollars and nothing else to spend them on, you can legally build a nuclear submarine right now. The regulatory oversight required by the DOE would be significant, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

Likewise, you could build a diesel/electric submarine right now without any more regulation than having to register it at a Marina.

[Kiknskreem]

You could put non-nuclear ICBMs on your civilian submarine, although I'm not sure what possible purpose that would serve.

Again, the question is, on what basis are you making this distinction between nukes and non nukes being ok.

Because it seems like its an arbitrary line that you are just creating yourself and stating it as a fact.

By the way, if you've got a few billion dollars and nothing else to spend them on, you can legally build a nuclear submarine right now. The regulatory oversight required by the DOE would be significant, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

Likewise, you could build a diesel/electric submarine right now without any more regulation than having to register it at a Marina.

I have no idea why you're even bringing this up since we're talking about nuclear armaments, not power sources.

[Ikeman83]

You can't win an argument so you spout off some crap.

He and I are discussing nuclear weapons, I already slew your hero's "crime" and "awb" nonsense.

Again, the question is, on what basis are you making this distinction between nukes and non nukes being ok.

Because it seems like its an arbitrary line that you are just creating yourself and stating it as a fact.

Nuclear weapons are state-level weapons with semi-permanent effects following use. You cannot use a nuke in any meaningful way to defend yourself. This puts it outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

[Kiknskreem]

Nuclear weapons are state-level weapons with semi-permanent effects following use. You cannot use a nuke in any meaningful way to defend yourself. This puts it outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

So you can meaningfully defend yourself with ICBM's, just not nuclear ones?

This seems kind of like a bull**** distinction.

[Ikeman83]

So you can meaningfully defend yourself with ICBM's, just not nuclear ones?

This seems kind of like a bull**** distinction.

An ICBM without a nuke on it is a rocket (legal) with a payload (legal under the NFA/GCA w/ tax stamp). Rockets are legal for civilian use. See Space-X.

[Kiknskreem]

An ICBM without a nuke on it is a rocket (legal) with a payload (legal under the NFA/GCA w/ tax stamp). Rockets are legal for civilian use. See Space-X.

The question again was, "so you can meaningfully defend yourself with ICBMs, just not nuclear ones?"

[Ikeman83]

The question again was, "so you can meaningfully defend yourself with ICBMs, just not nuclear ones?"

Probably not, since a non-nuclear ICBM is totally pointless. A cruise missile on the other hand could be used to destroy a ship or a land target. This is why we converted several of our old ICBM subs to shoot cruise missiles.

[C Project]

So do you want that everyone has the right to own any weapon ever? You want people to own tanks or nukes?

Yes

The second amendment was written in a time where people only had muskets. Try to think a little further and you´ll realize that laws like this have to be adjusted to the time we live in.

No

[Kiknskreem]

Probably not, since a non-nuclear ICBM is totally pointless.

ICBMs can carry traditional payloads, that's just not how we use them.

[Ikeman83]

ICBMs can carry traditional payloads, that's just not how we use them.

Sure they can, but putting a conventional charge on a rocket you're firing into low orbit to get it to the other side of the planet is stupid because the rocket will have more energy than the explosive when it hits.

"Being able to defend yourself with it" is an arbitrary test when you're talking about launching rockets into space, lol

[RThoe]

You retards really need another lesson on what the Second Amendment should and should not cover?

The Second Amendment Should Allow Me to Own Machine Guns and Rocket Launchers (SRS)
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=166438131

[ThinkingLifter]

He and I are discussing nuclear weapons, I already slew your hero's "crime" and "awb" nonsense.




Nuclear weapons are state-level weapons with semi-permanent effects following use. You cannot use a nuke in any meaningful way to defend yourself. This puts it outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

So you still have an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is not written there. If you interpret the 2nd amendment a certain way, how can you suddenly claim that another interpretation is false because it doesn´t only go by the literal wording of the 2nd amendment.

You say nukes aren´t there to defend yourself. Someone else says a tank isn´t there to defend yourself, or an assault weapon. Your reasoning is that anything that can´t be used to defend yourself in a meaningful way is outside the scope of the constitution. By that reasoning someone else can put more arms outside the scope of the constitution, and judging by opinion polls and already existing laws, mosst people do.

What is your rebuttal to that, when most other people and lawmakers say assault rifles and tanks can´t be used in any meaningful way to defend yourself?

[Kiknskreem]

Sure they can, but putting a conventional charge on a rocket you're firing into low orbit to get it to the other side of the planet is stupid because the rocket will have more energy than the explosive when it hits.

You're really getting bogged down in details that are irrelevant to the discussion.

I fail to see how one is able to "more meaningfully defend onself" with a cruise missile than nuclear artillery, for instance.

It seems like you've just arbitrarily drawn the line at "nukes are for the state".