Should this be protected by this "second amendment" you guys talk about all the time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
hypocritexposer said:there are already laws about this type of weapon.
But I doubt obama sheds any tears for those children he kills with drones.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Silver said:Should this be protected by this "second amendment" you guys talk about all the time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
I guess the point of my original post was to see if in fact there is a line somewhere between what people should be allowed to own. And if there is a line, it needs to be defined somehow. Not saying current definitions are right or wrong.
So if in fact there is a line (and by U.S. laws it appears there already is all sorts of laws as to who can and can't own a firearm, and what types qualified people may own), how should it be enforced effectively?
The Constitution must mean what it says or else it means nothing. In almost all cases, the meaning of words does not change, or at least has not changed since 1789; for the Constitution to mean what it says, the words must be read to mean that they meant to the people who wrote them, and what they meant to the people who agreed to adopt and/or amend them. The term "general welfare", for example, means the same thing today that it meant then - something is in the "general welfare" if it benefits everyone, i.e., the people generally. Likewise, "commerce" means the same thing today that it meant then - and the same thing it meant thousands of years ago; our government has decided that its meaning has changed to include decisions not to engage in commerce, and in a better world, the people would lop off the heads of the government officials who did that and who legislate today based on that, but the meaning of the word itself never changed.
All that said, the meaning of the word "arms" has changed. In 1789, "arms" included gunpowder-propelled pieces of metal, pieces of metal with sharp edges or points, and rudimentary rockets that used gunpowder as propellant and explosive. And to this day, since the 2nd amendment has not been changed, the Constitution either allows citizens to keep and bear these arms, or the Constitution means nothing. Many different weapons have been invented, or old weapons improved, since 1789, but most still resemble in all relevant respects the weapons that existed in 1789, and as such they are necessarily covered by the 2nd amendment. And what all of these weapons have in common is that in the hands of a citizen, while they can be used to kill several people, they can not be used to destroy entire communities, cities, or states. The recent events in Newtown, for example, as horrific as they were, pale in significance to the number of dead caused by machetes on a typical day in Africa. One person with any weapon can, and did on occasion prior to 1789, kill tens of people, but can not cause the breakdown of the society itself.
Not so with some of the more powerful weapons invented since 1789. Weapons that can kill hundreds of people (or more) in a single use, or that can kill any number of people at great distances, were not contemplated at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted, are destructive of the social order, are not related to personal self-defense, can't be used for hunting, and for these and possibly other reasons can't reasonably be included as "arms" within the meaning of the Constitution. As such, Congress is within its authority to regulate the possession of such weapons, since such regulation is, in my opinion, in the general welfare. In any event, regulation of such weapons is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson