PanzerAggie06 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

25 morons starred the OP

---

There is no deficit of morons here. There was a thread yesterday where people were upvoting comments that stated US citizens should be able to purchase nukes. Awesome.

---

Well if you just made it illegal to use them to kill anybody we would be fine right? That is what the people who want to ban guns apparently think...making guns illegal will work just as well as it has for drugs and murder. So why can't we buy nukes if there is a law against using them? We could make nuke free zones around schools so that nobody would bring them there. We could pilot the law after the successful ones used to ban guns in schools...

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

25 morons starred the OP

---

There is no deficit of morons here. There was a thread yesterday where people were upvoting comments that stated US citizens should be able to purchase nukes. Awesome.

---

I mean legally speaking yes, that's the point of the 2nd. Financially it's another conversation

EMY92 said:

---

---

that's merely a smores festival

dude95 said:

---

Not a gun owner but understand the rationale. There are hunting and protection reasons - I can also respect 'they are fun to have and fun to shoot'.

The one I struggle with is the one that the 2nd is based on - protection from a tyrannical government. This isn't Joe Biden storming your house or Nanci P abducting your kids that you would be exited to take some pot-shots. The government will pass laws and either LEO or military will be the ones enforcing it.

Are all these people on the board saying you have guns in case you need to shoot at LEO or military? Like - the cop who lives in the neighborhood or somebody's son who joined the marines out of high school?

LEO and military don't go into fights on even ground either. So if you are shooting out your front door - there are probably 100 guys on the other side shooting back. Plus all the technology those guys have vs the two dozen rifles you have at home. The Branch Davidians were nuts - but that seems to be the model and it didn't end well.

Is there another scenario that protection from a tyrannical government doesn't mean starting a war with local LEO or military?

---

Because I can't afford a full auto rifle.

Icecream_Ag said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

25 morons starred the OP

---

There is no deficit of morons here. There was a thread yesterday where people were upvoting comments that stated US citizens should be able to purchase nukes. Awesome.

---

I mean legally speaking yes, that's the point of the 2nd. Financially it's another conversation

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems, very well could have written the 2A in a different manner.

Which is ultimately pure conjecture. Either way it leaves us with three options.

1. Alter the 2A to clarify people can't have access to certain weapons.

2. Allow people to actually purchase such weapons.

3. Maintain the status quo and deny access to certain weapons.

Clearly option 2 is out. Leaving 1 and 3. In reality option 1 is a non starter. I can't imagine the ability to alter the 2A in any way.

So we should still have muskets while the Army gets automatic rifles?

Isn't, in part, the right to bear arms to protect citizens and keep government in check? If we were limited to 1800s technology that would be a problem....if the army gets it, why not us???

nortex97 said:

---

No idea why I came back to this thread, but I started buying AR's when I realized how much the leftists didn't want me to. Then started building them myself.

I don't really even like them, as even in the service I thought it was a pain to clean, but I enjoy owning them.

"Need" isn't mentioned anywhere in either the 1st, or 2nd Amendments, fyi. Pretty sure it's not anywhere in the bill of rights.

---

Clean? Surely you jest.

I hose mine down periodically with CLP, maybe take the bolt out and wipe it down....then hose it all down anyway. Cleaning is overrated, and really a carryover from a bygone time when powders were corrosive and not cleaning meant actual harm to your firearm.

planoaggie123 said:

---

So we should still have muskets while the Army gets automatic rifles?

Isn't, in part, the right to bear arms to protect citizens and keep government in check? If we were limited to 1800s technology that would be a problem....if the army gets it, why not us???

---

Absolutely not.

What those that don't study history never seem to grasp is that one of the reasons why the Colonists were able to defeat the biggest and best trained and best armed standing army in the world at the time was that the Colonists were actually better armed across the board than the Brits.

A Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle was far superior to the standard issue Brown Bess musket in every capacity with the exception of rate of fire. But rate of fire means little when you can't hit anything past about 50-60 yards and a Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle was accurate in the hands of somebody that knew how to use it up to 300 yards. So a smaller force using tactics and weaponry that gave them an advantage could defeat a larger and better trained and equipped force because the small arms they used were superior.

Throw in the fact that almost every single piece of artillery used by the Colonists was privately owned and that every single naval ship was privately owned and you get the backbone behind the 2nd.

Also throw in the fact that the Founders never wanted a full time standing army. That didn't happen until well after the Constitution was ratified - they envisioned the army to be drafted only as necessary, and that it was the duty of all men to be prepared in the event of being drafted into the army (or militia) - which meant having the necessary firearms of the time, and the understanding and skill to use them. Or, as the 2nd defines it - "well regulated", which the vernacular of the time meant "ability to effectively use and kept in good service".

Quit using facts, this is all about emotion.

Quote:

---

Because if an AR-15 is enough to keep 19 "trained" cowards with bulletproof vests and guns standing in a hallway for an hour while children are being slaughtered by an untrained 18 year old, then maybe it's enough to keep my home safe from any other evil *******s out there, so I don't have to rely on 19 cowards with bulletproof vests to do jack plop while I am potentially being slaughtered inside my own home. "

---

True. Those guys aren't coming in unless you are Roger Stone or Trump's lawyer.

planoaggie123 said:

---

So we should still have muskets while the Army gets automatic rifles?

Isn't, in part, the right to bear arms to protect citizens and keep government in check? If we were limited to 1800s technology that would be a problem....if the army gets it, why not us???

---

Who stated we should be limited to black powder riflles? I certainly didn't.

It's possible, even though some here have problems with nuance and not seeing the world as simply black or white, to believe that gun control is pointless while also realizing not every weapon system should be available to all. That this is even a discussion points to the flaws inherent in the 2A.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quit using facts, this is all about emotion.

---

Sorry.

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!!!!!

(did I do that right?)

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

buda91 said:

---

I'm not sure it was OP's intent, but this thread has very much encouraged me to go get an AR!

---

This thread is a good resource, learnt a lot , helped me buy my first one. And now, i can't stop...

https://texags.com/forums/34/topics/2732608

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

Do you think they foresaw the Interstate Highway system, or the electric grid system? The oil and gas pipeline system? Any of that stuff when they set aside the power of eminent domain? People that put parameters on the 2nd rarely put the same parameters on other parts of the constitution. You either believe that the founders set the constitution up to cover the rights or you believe it is a living document open to interpretation on what we want it to say today. I believe the founders set out the power of eminent domain because they knew society would continue advancing and government would need some way to keep up with that advancement without gridlock, regardless of what might come.

Likewise, I believe the founders knew firearms and weaponry would grow and the simple way to ensure that the people could always keep up with it was to expressly state that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I fully believe they thought the people should be able to own anything one could dream of. Anything else requires us to interpret and put our own feelings into the equation.

Precisely.

country said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

Do you think they foresaw the Interstate Highway system, or the electric grid system? The oil and gas pipeline system? Any of that stuff when they set aside the power of eminent domain? People that put parameters on the 2nd rarely put the same parameters on other parts of the constitution. You either believe that the founders set the constitution up to cover the rights or you believe it is a living document open to interpretation on what we want it to say today. I believe the founders set out the power of eminent domain because they knew society would continue advancing and government would need some way to keep up with that advancement without gridlock, regardless of what might come.

Likewise, I believe the founders knew firearms and weaponry would grow and the simple way to ensure that the people could always keep up with it was to expressly state that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I fully believe they thought the people should be able to own anything one could dream of. Anything else requires us to interpret and put our own feelings into the equation.

---

That's all nice but you skirted the issue.

So, would you support a law that allowed any citizen to pop down to the local gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb with its 400kt yield?

planoaggie123 said:

---

So we should still have muskets while the Army gets automatic rifles?

Isn't, in part, the right to bear arms to protect citizens and keep government in check? If we were limited to 1800s technology that would be a problem....if the army gets it, why not us???

---

Yep. I'll give up my 2nd amendment when you give up your 1st

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

country said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

Do you think they foresaw the Interstate Highway system, or the electric grid system? The oil and gas pipeline system? Any of that stuff when they set aside the power of eminent domain? People that put parameters on the 2nd rarely put the same parameters on other parts of the constitution. You either believe that the founders set the constitution up to cover the rights or you believe it is a living document open to interpretation on what we want it to say today. I believe the founders set out the power of eminent domain because they knew society would continue advancing and government would need some way to keep up with that advancement without gridlock, regardless of what might come.

Likewise, I believe the founders knew firearms and weaponry would grow and the simple way to ensure that the people could always keep up with it was to expressly state that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I fully believe they thought the people should be able to own anything one could dream of. Anything else requires us to interpret and put our own feelings into the equation.

---

That's all nice but you skirted the issue.

So, would you support a law that allowed any citizen to pop down to the local gun shop and by a B61 nuclear bomb with its 400kt yield?

---

I didn't skirt any issue. I said that I fully believe the founders thought that citizens of the U.S. should have the right to keep and bear arms which covers anything imaginable.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

Enough straw here to feed my cousins entire herd of cattle for a year.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

BlueSmoke said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

Enough straw here to feed my cousins entire herd of cattle for a year.

---

Nice try. Try to keep up.

Posters state the 2A covers "all" weapons systems and I merely asking if this includes city killer nukes. No straw in sight.

Of course I'm having a hard time getting people to clearly state, "Yes individuals should be able to purchase nukes." It's mostly just, "I support the 2A.".

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

They were already in design back then. In existence shortly after - in fact, Lewis and Clark brought one on their exploration of the Louisiana territory in 1803, which was just 12 years after the BOR was ratified.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

Enough straw here to feed my cousins entire herd of cattle for a year.

---

Nice try. Try to keep up.

Posters state the 2A covers "all" weapons systems and I merely asking if this includes city killer nukes. No straw in sight.

Of course I'm having a hard time getting people to clearly state, "Yes individuals should be able to purchase nukes." It's mostly just, "I support the 2A.".

---

What percentage of the population could afford a nuke?

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

country said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

Do you think they foresaw the Interstate Highway system, or the electric grid system? The oil and gas pipeline system? Any of that stuff when they set aside the power of eminent domain? People that put parameters on the 2nd rarely put the same parameters on other parts of the constitution. You either believe that the founders set the constitution up to cover the rights or you believe it is a living document open to interpretation on what we want it to say today. I believe the founders set out the power of eminent domain because they knew society would continue advancing and government would need some way to keep up with that advancement without gridlock, regardless of what might come.

Likewise, I believe the founders knew firearms and weaponry would grow and the simple way to ensure that the people could always keep up with it was to expressly state that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I fully believe they thought the people should be able to own anything one could dream of. Anything else requires us to interpret and put our own feelings into the equation.

---

That's all nice but you skirted the issue.

So, would you support a law that allowed any citizen to pop down to the local gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb with its 400kt yield?

---

Sure.

Now, tell me what the cost of a B61 nuke is.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

Enough straw here to feed my cousins entire herd of cattle for a year.

---

Nice try. Try to keep up.

Posters state the 2A covers "all" weapons systems and I merely asking if this includes city killer nukes. No straw in sight.

Of course I'm having a hard time getting people to clearly state, "Yes individuals should be able to purchase nukes." It's mostly just, "I support the 2A.".

---

What percentage of the population could afford a nuke?

---

me. I just hang out with you lolpoors for the trial reactions from her legalness dame hawg

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

Enough straw here to feed my cousins entire herd of cattle for a year.

---

Nice try. Try to keep up.

Posters state the 2A covers "all" weapons systems and I merely asking if this includes city killer nukes. No straw in sight.

Of course I'm having a hard time getting people to clearly state, "Yes individuals should be able to purchase nukes." It's mostly just, "I support the 2A.".

---

What percentage of the population could afford a nuke?

---

Does it matter? You'd be good with Zuckerberg, Soros, Gates or radical groups with large bank accounts buying a nuke?

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

Did you not read my post? NFA = issued by BATFE. You might be able to get the form with the tax stamp that says you can own the thing, but -- along with a multitude of other problems -- the manufacturers aren't going to just sell some random shmuck that sort of materials.

There are fighter jets, tanks, and other (usually retired but working) military equipment in private hands. It can be done, but it is neither cheap nor easy.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

country said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

Do you think they foresaw the Interstate Highway system, or the electric grid system? The oil and gas pipeline system? Any of that stuff when they set aside the power of eminent domain? People that put parameters on the 2nd rarely put the same parameters on other parts of the constitution. You either believe that the founders set the constitution up to cover the rights or you believe it is a living document open to interpretation on what we want it to say today. I believe the founders set out the power of eminent domain because they knew society would continue advancing and government would need some way to keep up with that advancement without gridlock, regardless of what might come.

Likewise, I believe the founders knew firearms and weaponry would grow and the simple way to ensure that the people could always keep up with it was to expressly state that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I fully believe they thought the people should be able to own anything one could dream of. Anything else requires us to interpret and put our own feelings into the equation.

---

That's all nice but you skirted the issue.

So, would you support a law that allowed any citizen to pop down to the local gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb with its 400kt yield?

---

Sure.

Now, tell me what the cost of a B61 nuke is.

---

Ask Soros. He can afford one. Want that ***** to have access to nukes? How about radical groups with large bank accounts? The Nation of Islam with a nuke sounds reasonable. Haha.