- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’
Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:57 am
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 on 3/18/19 at 11:59 am to Wtodd
quote:When anyone starts with this, you can safely bet they are neither.
As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment,
Posted on 3/18/19 at 11:59 am to Wtodd
quote:
But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:01 pm to Wtodd
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.
Heck, look at US v. Miller - they ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be banned because they DON'T have a military application.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:02 pm to Wtodd
literally written into the amendment, the text itself, justifies the opposite of Scarborough's contention.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:02 pm to Wtodd
someone needs to remind lil' Joey about Federalist #46, and why the right to bear arms exists
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to Wtodd
What the 2nd Amendment does protect is us against people like Scarborough and his ilk.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to Wtodd
Joe is either dishonest, or historically illiterate.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:03 pm to Wtodd
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:05 pm to Wtodd
Today’s weapons are an entirely different
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.
animal. The comparison for purposes of the Framers’ intent isn’t very useful.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:05 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Weapons of War
Of all the gun grabber rhetoric, this is the silliest.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:07 pm to Wtodd
SHALL.NOT.BE.INFRINGED.
Why can't folks understand that?
Why can't folks understand that?
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:07 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Individuals could own their own cannon at the time of the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:08 pm to VOR
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:09 pm to VOR
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:12 pm to TideCPA
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:13 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’
That's actually exactly what it protects
Posted on 3/18/19 at 12:14 pm to VOR
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:15 pm to VOR
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 on 3/18/19 at 12:15 pm to Wtodd
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News