- 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
re: The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:04 pm to RFK
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:04 pm to RFK
Well regulated in this instance just means disciplined, not regulated in the sense of legislation.
I.E an organized and trained militia is necessary. It’s a justification for the right to own firearms. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear that the intent is for the ownership of firearms to not be regulated.
As far as being able to own a nuke argument, that falls under the definition of arms. Arms are commonly defined in constitutional law as weapons that an individual can carry so something like a missile or bomb does not fall under that. Which also means to me that the strict regulation of machine guns, grenade launchers, shoulder fired rocket launchers, etc is unconstitutional.
I.E an organized and trained militia is necessary. It’s a justification for the right to own firearms. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear that the intent is for the ownership of firearms to not be regulated.
As far as being able to own a nuke argument, that falls under the definition of arms. Arms are commonly defined in constitutional law as weapons that an individual can carry so something like a missile or bomb does not fall under that. Which also means to me that the strict regulation of machine guns, grenade launchers, shoulder fired rocket launchers, etc is unconstitutional.
1
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:08 pm to RFK
quote:
it’s clear they intended citizens to be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.
You are wrong. They intended citizens to be able to bear arms for any means of self-defense, but they also understood that the government would always be the greatest threat to freedom. The right to bear arms was so that the people would have the capability of forming a militia if needed, not as a requirement.
But if you leftists want to demand that tens of millions of Americans form well-trained private armies to justify owning firearms, by all means, do so.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:09 pm to Pragmatist2025
quote:
have no delusions about overthrowing the government. I just want to have the right and means to take out a few who may one day decide to overthrow me.
People tend to think in terms of overthrowing our govt in relation to the 2nd amendment but overlook a far more likely scenario and that’s the ability to repel an invading army. Regardless of our current military might, no foreign government will ever try to invade the United States even if they had the military capability to pull it off. If you count the number of armed citizens we have by far the largest standing army in the world. The guerilla warfare an invading army would face here would be impossible to defeat
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:14 pm to nealnan8
quote:
then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership.
My dad got me a .22 rifle when I was 4. I learned to shoot it at targets under his strict supervision
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:15 pm to deltaland
quote:
As far as being able to own a nuke argument, that falls under the definition of arms. Arms are commonly defined in constitutional law as weapons that an individual can carry so something like a missile or bomb does not fall under that.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the Davy Crockett nuke.
quote:I love how everyone checks in as a supposed expert only to find they are misinformed. What determines “can be carried.”
The Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapon system was designed to be carried by two men. A well-trained team could emplace the weapon and ready it for fire in less than three minutes.
Where did you even get this argument?
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:17 pm to RFK
quote:you misinterpreted this part.
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:26 pm to theballguy
quote:
Bottom line: if you’re a law abiding citizen, you have a right to own guns and use them in legal circumstances. Overthrowing the government is 100% illegal.
What’s legal and what’s righteous can be on opposite ends of the spectrum. If a government is committing say genocide of a certain segment of its citizens and people have the means to fight back and overthrow such government it would still be illegal to do it but it would be the right thing to do.
The Founding Fathers were traitors to England. Sometimes the righteous action is not necessarily the legal one
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:27 pm to RFK
quote:
Maybe this is a moot point. If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.
A bunch of goat herders beat 2 world superpowers with AK 47’s and road side bombs
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:30 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Why then did the FF's think it was ok for private citizens to own the most dangerous weapons of the time?
I doubt that the FF's envisioned something like nuclear weapons. I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together would agree that regulating atomic weapons is probably a good idea.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:31 pm to RFK
quote:
carried by two men.
I.e not a weapon carried by one individual
quote:
Where did you even get this argument?
D.C. v Heller
Posted on 5/31/26 at 2:33 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
doubt that the FF's envisioned something like nuclear weapons. I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together would agree that regulating atomic weapons is probably a good idea.
No individual should possess a weapon capable of leveling a city and killing millions with the push of a button.
Hell I’d argue that governments shouldn’t possess such a thing either
Posted on 5/31/26 at 3:28 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
I doubt that the FF's envisioned something like nuclear weapons. I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together would agree that regulating atomic weapons is probably a good idea
Why do you think I didn't include "nukes" when I quoted the OP?
I would argue that even nations should not have nukes.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 5/31/26 at 3:30 pm to UtahCajun
No nation should have nukes.
It should be the president and his kids bs the president of the country and his kids MMA style.
All this shite would stop.
The mess hall marine is slowing down.
It should be the president and his kids bs the president of the country and his kids MMA style.
All this shite would stop.
The mess hall marine is slowing down.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 5/31/26 at 3:32 pm to RFK
quote:The 2nd amendment does not say a well regulated militia is the only reason to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
I reject your symantic/syntax premises on that basis alone
Posted on 5/31/26 at 3:52 pm to RFK
The Second Amendment is drawn from the original state's gun rights amendments. It is quite clear that a well regulated militia is dependent on our citizens right to bear arms, not the other way around.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 5:09 pm to RFK
quote:
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
Guy in Houston bought a WWII Sherman and parked on the street in front of his house pissing off his HOA several years ago. If you have the money you can legally buy just about whatever you want ie Machine guns, grenades, tanks, helicopter armed with M134 mini gun. All you need is an SOT class III license. Go to YouTube and search for Knob creek machine gun shoot and see the fireworks.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 5:18 pm to RFK
quote:Sure. Unconstitutional
Explain the requirement for a background check.
quote:
Or to be of a certain age to purchase arms.
You are a minor and under the supervision of an adult. If you need one the responsible party can provide it at their discretion.
quote:
Or to register weapons, depending on the state.
Register weapons? We talking like Actual Machine Guns? Unconstitutional.
quote:
Or to take a class/certification to possess weapons.
Unconstitutional.
quote:
These are all “infringements
You are correct.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 5:26 pm to RFK
quote:Indeed. But you appear to be ignorant to what the word regulated means in this co text. “Overseen by the government” ain’t it.
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
LINK Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States by Friedrich Wilhelm Steuben
Posted on 5/31/26 at 5:39 pm to RFK
quote:All 50 states permit owning tanks
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
Posted on 5/31/26 at 5:51 pm to RFK
quote:
“Shall not be infringed” refers to the right to bear arms in order to form a “well regulated militia”. This therefore indicates the militia can be “regulated” in some fashion
Keep reading the 2ndA. It says "something, something, people".
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News