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

[Truth Detector]

I ASSUMED that this was common knowledge....
But sure, here. Be prepared for some reading though...
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/66-2Young.pdf

I am at a loss to see a connection of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to the current second ammendment debate.

Well then an amendment would be such simple thing to pass. Except, that no. The only difference between a 120mm cannon and .22S rifle is bore diameter.

There is a HUGE difference in that a 120mm cannon can take out a building or a tank. A 22 lr is barely capable of taking down a squirrel.

The argument that citizens can arm themselves with any means necessary was lost on our Supreme Courts thanks to the efforts of Bonnie and Clyde and the Dillinger gang.

And if you create the precedent that you can effectively ban one, then it remains that the others can be banned as well based on the exact same principle. In fact every shotgun in existence to this day (other than .410 shotguns) is legal only because the ATF has decided to keep it so. But do go on, please tell me that creating legal precedent like you suggest is good for society.

I am amused that you think the only difference between a 120 mm cannon and other long guns is the bore.

You're assuming of course that elections will remain free and fair, in which case I must ask what the winning Powerball numbers are.

It is not an assumption; it is a reality based on how we conduct elections and are guided by a Constitution. But again, I am all eyes and ears to see evidence that our elections are anything but. Or is this another "because you say so?"

May I ask your age? It places things in better perspective for me.

As a further FYI; I am a lifetime member of the NRA.

 

[sedan]

The only difference between a 120mm cannon and .22S rifle is bore diameter.

Antonin Scalia disagrees with you:

WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute.

SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.​

 

[Timshel]

Dear dullard; no you were not. You were constructing strawmen as morons are prone to do and making yourself look... painfully stupid.

Carry on; apparently you are desperate to remove all doubt that you are an incredibly dense uninformed buffoon.

Dear moron,

Again Barton made the argument. Then it was taken up by three posters. It's not a strawman.

 

[Timshel]

We don't limit them prior to their abuse though. We punish abuse, not try to prevent it. Unless that's what you'd like to see.

Uh, yeah we can afford to suffer occasional slander, but use of a wmd not so much.

 

[Abatis]

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 problem I have with this (and speaking from a "gun rights supporter" standpoint) is that the ability to keep and bear tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and any other weapon of open / indiscriminate warfare they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs can not be declared "inalienable" because the power to acquire, maintain and deploy HAS been conferred to the federal government through the power to make war and "provide for" the armed forces.

We the People can not clam as a "right" those interests that we have surrendered, and as far as those weapons in italics above go, the argument can be made that federal preemption and supremacy would be claimed to support laws restricting the citizen ownership of those weapons and that those laws would be constitutionally sustained if challenged (as violative of the 2nd Amendment). . .

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.

Absolutely true.

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?

I agree with Scalia that NFA-34 is probably unconstitutional but the Catch-22 that Scalia notes is that since full-auto has been restricted for 70+ years and counting, machine guns are not "in common use" and thus the bar is raised to argue that they are protected.

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 ...

And there is the crux of the issue, government attacking the people and the people's ability to fight back . . .

The 2nd Amendment first intends to preserve the general militia concept to ensure that the states and the feds can have at their disposal a large force of civic minded citizens (considered to be 20%-25% of the total population) ready at a moment's notice to muster with an arm supplied by themselves to aid the civil authority in time of need.

That action of organizing, training and deploying the citizens as militia is a function belonging to legitimate government and along with the citizen's duty to serve the government when called, assumes that the government is operating within the confines of the Constitution and respecting the principles of its establishment.

When government exceeds the powers granted to it and harms rights and is violating the principles of its establishment, it is the citizen's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers granted through the Constitution and force the government to relinquish those powers.

At that point the illegitimate government can no longer claim the preemption and supremacy authority that protects it and the people would then posses the sole authority to possess and use tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and any other weapon of open / indiscriminate warfare they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs in defense against that illegitimate government.

Barton's assignment of the 2nd Amendment being the legal claim of the "right" to posses and use those weapons is misapplied and shortsighted.

If it comes down to the government using the weapons of war against the people and the citizens using the weapons of war against the government, the issue of "constitutional rights" is moot as there is no expectation of citing government authority under the Constitution to protect said rights. In the grand scheme of things, the 2nd entails the complete de-powering and throwing off of illegitimate government and the reclamation of ALL powers once surrendered, not just the claim to own a particular arm.


.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There will be no rebellion; it's a fools argument. There are loonies on the right, and there are loonies on the left. Trying to project those loonies as being representative of an entire population is...dumb.

Moron.

I'm sure king George of England thought the same thing.......once.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We don't limit them prior to their abuse though. We punish abuse, not try to prevent it. Unless that's what you'd like to see.

it's funny that liberals are against prior restraint until it comes to guns.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

As a further FYI; I am a lifetime member of the NRA.

no wonder you're a fucktard.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Antonin Scalia disagrees with you:

WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute.

SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.​

any opinion by scalia should be considered worthless. he's a pro tyrant black robed moron who doesn't really believe in the constitution.

 

[Timshel]

it's funny that liberals are against prior restraint until it comes to guns.

We are talking about more than guns. We have prior restraint of many items, e.g., drugs, medicine, food additives, cars, baby seats, hair dryers, toilets, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We are talking about more than guns. We have prior restraint of many items, e.g., drugs, medicine, food additives, cars, baby seats, hair dryers, toilets, etc.

are you daft? other than the major abuse of the commerce clause, what part of the constitution gives the feds ANY semblance of power over those?

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm sure king George of England thought the same thing.......once.

So you think our Democracy and President is the equivalent of a King?

Not even close; talk of a revolt is for fools and simpletons.

 

[tekkychick]

are you daft? other than the major abuse of the commerce clause, what part of the constitution gives the feds ANY semblance of power over those?

Jesus fucking christ, you want to kill off all of us? Without standards around drugs, medicines, food additives, etc that's what you're doing. Companies don't care.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you think our Democracy and President is the equivalent of a King?

Not even close; talk of a revolt is for fools and simpletons.

that you can't, or refuse to see, the usurpation of the government tells us you're not ready for reality

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Jesus fucking christ, you want to kill off all of us? Without standards around drugs, medicines, food additives, etc that's what you're doing. Companies don't care.

just because your infantile intelligence is incapable of letting you take care of yourself doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit with you.

 

[sedan]

Jesus fucking christ, you want to kill off all of us? Without standards around drugs, medicines, food additives, etc that's what you're doing. Companies don't care.

In the libertarian paradise, rational self-interest will stop corporations from poisoning our air, water and food.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In the libertarian paradise, rational self-interest will stop corporations from poisoning our air, water and food.

in the liberal/conservative paradise, government must babysit us because you're all too immature to be an adult in reality.

 

[Timshel]

are you daft? other than the major abuse of the commerce clause, what part of the constitution gives the feds ANY semblance of power over those?

???

And yet they regulate them. I dont care how daft you are, you cant seriously believe the courts are going to suddenly shift gears and limit legislators in those areas.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

???

And yet they regulate them. I dont care how daft you are, you cant serioysly believe the courts are going to suddenly shift gears and limit legislators in those areas.

which should be all the testament anyone needs to know that the government is no longer operating within it's constitutional limitations and restrictions. it reduces us down to two choices and that is submit to their tyranny or violently resist.

 

[Timshel]

which should be all the testament anyone needs to know that the government is no longer operating within it's constitutional limitations and restrictions. it reduces us down to two choices and that is submit to their tyranny or violently resist.

And you choose to submit. Maybe not as fully as grind, who welcomed house to house searches but by failing to be relevant and being absurdly unreasonable, you submit.

Nobody is coming for your guns. You do not have a right to bombs, a tank, a jet fighter or anything to that extent. Obviously there are limits on the second but they should be narrowly tailored to suit a legitimate government interest and cannot deprive one of the right to bear arms.

The real threat to liberty is in a massive standing army that many supposed advocates of the second amendment continue to support. We should be focused on reducing that instead of wasting our breath and destroying our credibility on idiotic ideas about some imagined right to a nuke.

This is a tangent, but the courts are not going to suddenly wipe away the regulatory schemes of Congress. Without something to replace it that probably would not be a good thing. Any change there will have to be gradual and combined with the development of other regulatory schemes, e.g., free market mechanisms, development of tort case law, etc..