Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or Fighter Jet

Dick Puncher EXPRESS said:
There was U.S. v. Miller, but despite how they found Miller (who was DEAD at the time of the case, and his lawyer naturally didn't show up), the decision in Miller supports exactly what I said; that weapons of military utility are protected by the 2A, because that's the entire point of the 2A.
Click to expand...

You are reading something into the ruling that is not there or at best, would be in dicta.

Miller allows for regulation of the weapons under the NFA. They ruled that the law does not violate the second amendment.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You are reading something into the ruling that is not there or at best, would be in dicta.

Miller allows for regulation of the weapons under the NFA. They ruled that the law does not violate the second amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting it almost verbetim. It says arms of usefulness in a military setting are protected. The court found that a shotgun with a barrel less than 18in was not useful in a military setting (which is because Miller was dead and his lawyer didn't show, because the fucking army at the time had SBS's) and therfore was NOT protected.
 
Anti-Party said:
Political newbs like yourself don't know what Liberty is.

Is it Liberty to do anything anywhere no consequences?

Is it Liberty to do anything we want until "proven guilty"?

Or is it "Don't profile people who have abused weapons before. The Correctional facility "corrected" them and that is all we have to know.
Click to expand...

PUhGwaw.jpg
 
Threedee said:
:indeed:
Click to expand...

Let me stop my compliments for one and spend them on Threedee.

Advanced political debaters know that the only thing you can post that trumps all knowledge of actual politics is an image of the Peanut man that looks like it was done on McDraw.

Fox News, Right Wing and basic idiots will see this figure and know that Threedee won the argument even without the use of a single word.
 
Professor Baxter said:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tees-individual-right-own-tank-or-fighter-jet

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton doubled down on his assertion that there are literally no limits on the Second Amendment, declaring that individuals not only have an inalienable right to possess guns, but also tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and anything else they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs:


The belief of the Second Amendment was you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself whether it be against a thug, an aggressor, a crook, or against your government.


Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?


Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ... You have a right to fight back with whatever you can get your hands on to defend your life, your property, your possession, your family, your whatever.
Click to expand...

You calling them "Liberals" was absolutely accurate.
 
Dick Puncher EXPRESS said:
I'm quoting it almost verbetim. It says arms of usefulness in a military setting are protected. The court found that a shotgun with a barrel less than 18in was not useful in a military setting (which is because Miller was dead and his lawyer didn't show, because the fucking army at the time had SBS's) and therfore was NOT protected.
Click to expand...

You seem to be reading into it from a portion that created no precedent. It did not deal with a right to bear arms in general, but only a certain type. Scalia's opinion in Heller says as much as well as stating that the second amendment is not unlimited.

Heller and McDonald were both good rulings but the second amendment does not mean that no law can be passed regulating firearms or weapons, in general.

Conservatives ignore the fact that the founders biggest concern with the threat to liberty in relation to the second concerned standing armies. We have one now and its support has definitely reduced our liberty as has the acceptance of perpetual wars on terror. Conservatives have called for more aggressive and bigger military and usually support the war on terror along with using it as an excuse to violate our right to privacy and assume a persons guilt with profiling, it has not completely eliminated our liberty. We still enjoy a right to bear arms and should. The biggest threat is not that the government will regulate our access to weapons like a bazooka, which it has done for 70 years. The biggest threat is still from the war machine which keeps growing along with our acceptance of its erosion of privacy rights.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You seem to be reading into it from a portion that created no precedent.
Click to expand...
No, I'm reading the opening fucking paragraph. If it creates no precedent than the ruling itself is not precedent.
It did not deal with a right to bear arms in general, but only a certain type.
Click to expand...
No, it dealt with the NFA and therefore the 2A as a whole.
Scalia's opinion in Heller says as much as well as stating that the second amendment is not unlimited.
Click to expand...
Scalia can choke on a dick for all I care.

Heller and McDonald were both good rulings but the second amendment does not mean that no law can be passed regulating firearms or weapons, in general.
Click to expand...
Any and all such laws must be, by their very nature, as narrowly tailored so as to best preserve both the practical extent to which the right may be exercised AND to preserve the intent with which the amendment was written.

Conservatives ignore the fact that the founders biggest concern with the threat to liberty in relation to the second concerned standing armies. We have one now and its support has definitely reduced our liberty as has the acceptance of perpetual wars on terror.
Click to expand...
Ok....and? You're not speaking to a 'Conservative' here. In fact, none have posted in this thread at all.
Conservatives have called for more aggressive and bigger military and usually support the war on terror along with using it as an excuse to violate our right to privacy and assume a persons guilt with profiling, it has not completely eliminated our liberty. We still enjoy a right to bear arms and should. The biggest threat is not that the government will regulate our access to weapons like a bazooka, which it has done for 70 years. The biggest threat is still from the war machine which keeps growing along with our acceptance of its erosion of privacy rights.
Click to expand...
And yet you seem to blissfully IGNORE the precedent that you support directly leads to an erosion of all our rights. You seem to pretend that the 2A exists in a vaccuum away from all other rights and that we can infringe and regulate it at will and it will not give cause and precedent to do the exact same thing to our other rights.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You seem to be reading into it from a portion that created no precedent. It did not deal with a right to bear arms in general, but only a certain type. Scalia's opinion in Heller says as much as well as stating that the second amendment is not unlimited.

Heller and McDonald were both good rulings but the second amendment does not mean that no law can be passed regulating firearms or weapons, in general.

Conservatives ignore the fact that the founders biggest concern with the threat to liberty in relation to the second concerned standing armies. We have one now and its support has definitely reduced our liberty as has the acceptance of perpetual wars on terror. Conservatives have called for more aggressive and bigger military and usually support the war on terror along with using it as an excuse to violate our right to privacy and assume a persons guilt with profiling, it has not completely eliminated our liberty. We still enjoy a right to bear arms and should. The biggest threat is not that the government will regulate our access to weapons like a bazooka, which it has done for 70 years. The biggest threat is still from the war machine which keeps growing along with our acceptance of its erosion of privacy rights.
Click to expand...

Good post.

It's the Industrial Complex War Machine.

It's all for profit. The sepearation of the parties is "do you think about Corporations or people? these days.

Corporations are doing better than ever and the people are not. I think this explains itself.
 
Dick Puncher EXPRESS said:
No, I'm reading the opening fucking paragraph. If it creates no precedent than the ruling itself is not precedent.
No, it dealt with the NFA and therefore the 2A as a whole.
Scalia can choke on a dick for all I care.

Any and all such laws must be, by their very nature, as narrowly tailored so as to best preserve both the practical extent to which the right may be exercised AND to preserve the intent with which the amendment was written.

Ok....and? You're not speaking to a 'Conservative' here. In fact, none have posted in this thread at all.
And yet you seem to blissfully IGNORE the precedent that you support directly leads to an erosion of all our rights. You seem to pretend that the 2A exists in a vaccuum away from all other rights and that we can infringe and regulate it at will and it will not give cause and precedent to do the exact same thing to our other rights.
Click to expand...

The ruling creates precedent on the details of the case, only. The rest is not precedent setting.

It upheld the NFA as constitutional which establishes a precedent that the government may regulate certain weapons and firearms, specifically, short barrel shotguns.

I fully agree, the laws must be narrowly tailored. I don't think we can infringe and regulate the second amendment, at will. Like I said, Heller and McDonald, which struck down laws that infringed on the second, were good rulings.

I dont agree that limits on a bazooka under the nfa are infringements. I don't see the point with limits on a sbs. But the law is almost seventy years old and it has not been the thin entering wedge the conservatives keep claiming it will become. Our individual right to bear arms has only become more secure.

Barton is a conservative and I was addressing the arguments used about defending ourselves from the government. While the conservatives fear seems like irrational nonsense the founder's fear has been realized. We have a standing army, and, so, much of their reasons for the second must be reevaluated or their arguments are used out of context. The second failed to prevent the tyranny they dreaded and still its not all that bad. However, we should not dismiss their REAL fear of a standing army. It is still a dangerous thing to liberty.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You seem to be reading into it from a portion that created no precedent. It did not deal with a right to bear arms in general, but only a certain type. Scalia's opinion in Heller says as much as well as stating that the second amendment is not unlimited.

Heller and McDonald were both good rulings but the second amendment does not mean that no law can be passed regulating firearms or weapons, in general.

Conservatives ignore the fact that the founders biggest concern with the threat to liberty in relation to the second concerned standing armies. We have one now and its support has definitely reduced our liberty as has the acceptance of perpetual wars on terror. Conservatives have called for more aggressive and bigger military and usually support the war on terror along with using it as an excuse to violate our right to privacy and assume a persons guilt with profiling, it has not completely eliminated our liberty. We still enjoy a right to bear arms and should. The biggest threat is not that the government will regulate our access to weapons like a bazooka, which it has done for 70 years. The biggest threat is still from the war machine which keeps growing along with our acceptance of its erosion of privacy rights.
Click to expand...
no idea what this is all about - i do know perpetual war is draining of our treasure, blood, and rights ( along with the Patriot Act).

Havng no clue I did find this:http://nfadealers.com/ which is freakishly really scarey - machine guns are legal?

Dunno where this goes, why in the heck one needs these things, muchless desires them. but i'll watch this discussion.
It has been an eye openor.
 
annata said:
no idea what this is all about - i do know perpetual war is draining of our treasure, blood, and rights ( along with the Patriot Act).

Havng no clue I did find this:http://nfadealers.com/ which is freakishly really scarey - machine guns are legal?

Dunno where this goes, why in the heck one needs these things, muchless desires them. but i'll watch this discussion.
It has been an eye openor.
Click to expand...

Why would they be illegal? They're massively impractical for any sort of crime.
 
annata said:
no idea what this is all about - i do know perpetual war is draining of our treasure, blood, and rights ( along with the Patriot Act).

Havng no clue I did find this:http://nfadealers.com/ which is freakishly really scarey - machine guns are legal?

Dunno where this goes, why in the heck one needs these things, muchless desires them. but i'll watch this discussion.
It has been an eye openor.
Click to expand...

It's about the reasons and arguments for the second. Gun rights advocates ignore/evade the fact that most of the founders arguments about liberty and the second dealt with the danger of a standing army. They were not arguing that if individuals were not permitted to walk the streets with guns or own artillery that the government might become tyrannical. They were arguing that without a well trained and prepared citizen militia there would be a demand for standing armies.

We have a standing army and so any sober and honest person has to consider the changed context. Of course, that excludes grind and others. A standing army does not and should not nullify the second. But if one truly shares the founders fear of a loss of liberty then your focus should be on reducing the size and power of the military not whether citizens should be able to own a tank.

You can own a machine gun but it is regulated. According to some who demand an extreme and likely unworkable reading of the second amendment this must be an unconstitutional infringement. I don't think it is and I don't have much problem with allowing it under the existing scheme. An unregulated trade in such weapons mixed with the black market created by our war on drugs, I fear, would have very negative results. I might be wrong, but as a libertarian I'll prioritize and demand an end to the drug war before we test that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top