Started By
Message
locked post

Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:57 am
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67482 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:57 am
quote:

by which he meant AR-15s

quote:

As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I agreed with the Supreme Court’s "Heller" holding that concluded Americans had the right to keep and bear arms. But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 18, 2019


Breitbart

Careful Joey because

quote:

Hawkins: ‘Weapons of War’ Were Civilian Firearms When 2nd Amendment Ratified


quote:

Former SEAL Team 3 member Eli Crane put it this way:

[Democrats today] push to ban certain firearms on the mere basis that they resemble military weapons. But you will never hear this same crowd of leftists compare the weaponry held by our military in the 1700s to the weaponry they have today. And that is because a thorough look at the weaponry of the 1700s—whether civilian or military—shows that the farmer and the soldier were using similar guns and weapons at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Crane continued:

If you contrast the firearm that a soldier carried in the late 1700s with the firearm that a citizen of that same time was allowed to own, you will see a pretty level playing field. You would most likely see both soldiers and citizens armed with muskets, cannons, and swords. If you did that same comparison today, juxtaposing the weaponry that is inventoried in our military arsenals versus the firepower that private citizens can legally possess, you will notice how much this gap has widened in favor of our government.



Well lil' Joey, your turn.

Breitbart
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57092 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:59 am to
quote:

As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment,
When anyone starts with this, you can safely bet they are neither.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
259936 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:59 am to
quote:

But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.
Posted by TideCPA
Member since Jan 2012
10342 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:01 pm to
I would argue that "weapons of war" are the ONLY arms the 2A protects. Nearly every firearm in existence was, at some point, designed as a "weapon of war". Muskets, bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles, semi-auto pistols, pump-action shotguns, etc. all got their start on the battlefield.

Heck, look at US v. Miller - they ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be banned because they DON'T have a military application.
Posted by JPinLondon
not in London (currently NW Ohio)
Member since Nov 2006
7855 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:02 pm to
literally written into the amendment, the text itself, justifies the opposite of Scarborough's contention.
Posted by Uncle Stu
#AlbinoLivesMatter
Member since Aug 2004
33658 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:02 pm to
someone needs to remind lil' Joey about Federalist #46, and why the right to bear arms exists
Posted by FredBear
Georgia
Member since Aug 2017
14976 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to
What the 2nd Amendment does protect is us against people like Scarborough and his ilk.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
19105 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to
Joe is either dishonest, or historically illiterate.
Posted by NIH
Member since Aug 2008
112553 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment


These people feel the need to lie all the time to boost their credibility
Posted by VOR
Member since Apr 2009
63443 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:05 pm to
Today’s weapons are an entirely different
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:05 pm to
quote:

Weapons of War


Of all the gun grabber rhetoric, this is the silliest.
Posted by kmdawg17
'Murica
Member since Sep 2015
1515 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:07 pm to
SHALL.NOT.BE.INFRINGED.

Why can't folks understand that?
Posted by NewbombII
Member since Nov 2014
4668 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:07 pm to
Individuals could own their own cannon at the time of the Bill of Rights.
Posted by TideCPA
Member since Jan 2012
10342 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:08 pm to
quote:

The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.


They could have easily said "muskets" instead of "arms". Why do you suppose they didn't do that?
Posted by thebigmuffaletta
Member since Aug 2017
12832 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:09 pm to
quote:

Today’s means of communication are an entirely different 
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.


FIFY
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79980 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:12 pm to
I'd draw the line at "Technical" vehicles. (Pickup Trucks with Machinegun mounts) That would give a whole new meaning to the term "road rage".
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134845 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:13 pm to
quote:

Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

That's actually exactly what it protects
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
19105 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

Today’s weapons are an entirely different
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.


Read more history.

The English had a longstanding fear of standing armies. They understood, and worried, that a standing army could be used by the central government to suppress the people.

They were also strongly influenced by Locke and considered popular militia to be a civic good. They wanted Americans to muster for their own defense in times of trouble.

That meant distributing cutting edge military weapons to the common man. Who could use them for their own defense, including defense against the United States of America. If necessary.

It was a check on the power of the central government.

You wouldn’t understand the framers because you don’t understand their fear of central government, and the potential for a centralized tyranny.
This post was edited on 3/18/19 at 12:17 pm
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134845 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

Today’s weapons are an entirely different
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.



Providing equal force against your average infantryman is the concept. I would ask you what you don't understand about that but you won't be back to answer.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51488 posts
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.


Except for the whole thing about an armed populace being the best deterrent from domestic despotism.

From Federalist 29...

quote:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.


Joe needs to re-read the Federalist Papers.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram