*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10004
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #600 on: July 20, 2022, 04:51:29 PM »
If by "dispose of it" you mean the 2nd ammendment, then your hypothetical is nonsensical because no branch of government can unilaterally change the constitution, so who cares?

By "dispose of" I mean disposing of the Fed because they became too tyrannical. Violating the second amendment might be one reason, yes.

Question along the same lines; Isn't the fact that a citizen can't own an F-15 or a tactical nuke an infringement of our second amendment rights?

During the time it was written the equivalent of billionaires in those times could own fleets of armed vessels and train and equip their men with weapons, so it is arguable that the founding fathers would not put restrictions on F-15s.

In regards to nuclear weapons, this may fall outside of the scope of what the framers envisioned. The second amendment gave the public the ability to act as a military power against a tyrannical government. But nuclear weapons fall outside of the classification of normal arms, as even the militaries of foreign countries are prohibited by international regulations from building and possessing nuclear weapons beyond the countries which already had them, since their proliferation could cause nuclear winter and human extinction. The usage of nuclear weapons against human targets is also tantamount to genocide, even if used solely against military targets, due to atmospheric and land-based radioactive effect, would provoke an international response, and is extremely taboo.

Nuclear weapons are not necessary to wage a serious war, so this limitation is generally accepted by the militaries of the world, and semi-successful efforts have been underway for the eventual mutual denuclearization of existing nuclear powers.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 12:51:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3198
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #601 on: July 20, 2022, 08:41:11 PM »
If by "dispose of it" you mean the 2nd ammendment, then your hypothetical is nonsensical because no branch of government can unilaterally change the constitution, so who cares?

By "dispose of" I meant disposing of the Fed because they became too tyrannical. Violating the second amendment might be one reason, yes.

Question along the same lines; Isn't the fact that a citizen can't own an F-15 or a tactical nuke an infringement of our second amendment rights?

During the time it was written the equivalent of billionaires in those times could own fleets of armed vessels and train and equip their men with weapons, so it is arguable that the founding fathers would not put restrictions on F-15s.

In regards to nuclear weapons, this may fall outside of the scope of what the framers envisioned. The second amendment gave the public the ability to act as a military power against a tyrannical government.

I'm guessing that the framers could probably have envisioned a scope for larger explosions, bombs, as they already had explosive-filled cannon balls, mortars and howitzers. I'm hard-pressed to think they could have envisioned flying contraptions like an apache helicopter or a Mach 2 capable F-15 with launchable stinger missiles.

The question remains, why can't a well-regulated militia, or any individual citizen, possess conventional arms like a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank rocket or a sawed-off shot gun? Do you think citizens should be allowed to possess such arms?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10004
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #602 on: July 20, 2022, 09:47:55 PM »
I'm guessing that the framers could probably have envisioned a scope for larger explosions, bombs, as they already had explosive-filled cannon balls, mortars and howitzers. I'm hard-pressed to think they could have envisioned flying contraptions like an apache helicopter or a Mach 2 capable F-15 with launchable stinger missiles.

At that time there were people who were rich enough to own fleets of vessels with armaments to potentially bombard towns and cities from the coast and employ men with weapons to raze, burn, and rape cities. Yet they still allowed people to own fleets of armed vessels and employ men with weapons capable of extreme destruction.

The framers knew this. Piracy was a known thing and a problem. If they had gone to college they would have known there was also thousands of years of history on this. In Ancient Rome a number of famous figures had personally funded militaries. There were those who used their militaries for evil and got in various conflicts and trouble, and there were also those who used their militaries for defense and the noble eradication of bad apples.

So yes, if the framers allowed private individuals the tools to ravage entire towns it logically follows that they would have allowed them to own F-15s.

Quote
The question remains, why can't a well-regulated militia, or any individual citizen, possess conventional arms like a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank rocket or a sawed-off shot gun? Do you think citizens should be allowed to possess such arms?

As long as proper precautions and training are made for safe storage and use, sure. People are already allowed rifles with long range scopes on them for sniper activities. An anti-tank rocket should be fair game as well.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 04:58:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6963
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #603 on: July 20, 2022, 10:24:16 PM »
Tom seems to also fail at history.

If we offered such weapons to any American, as well as the proper training, the bad guys would get them.
Imagine if the evil democrats all banded to gether with scilocon valley, planned parenthood, and the Liberal Media to fund their own army of evil liberals, all with more hardware than the US government and capable of doing a lot of damage to small, rural towns?  The conservatives are all grass root and don't have the funding needed to purchase and train counter militia.

It would be a slaughter.  Just like Afghanistan.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #604 on: July 20, 2022, 10:55:22 PM »
The question remains, why can't a well-regulated militia, or any individual citizen, possess conventional arms like a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank rocket or a sawed-off shot gun?
It should probably be pointed out that the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment is referring to is now known as the National Guard.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3198
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #605 on: July 21, 2022, 01:33:07 AM »
I think it's broader than just the National Guard...

The text of the amendment, which refers to a “well regulated Militia,” suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99

Then one must probably have to take a deep dive on what exactly, "to defend the nation" means.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #606 on: July 21, 2022, 01:42:00 AM »
The Militia Acts of 1792, 1795 and 1903 went on to refine that definition over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Are the American police out of control?
« Reply #607 on: July 21, 2022, 03:08:25 PM »
If by "dispose of it" you mean the 2nd ammendment, then your hypothetical is nonsensical because no branch of government can unilaterally change the constitution, so who cares?

By "dispose of" I mean disposing of the Fed because they became too tyrannical. Violating the second amendment might be one reason, yes.

Question along the same lines; Isn't the fact that a citizen can't own an F-15 or a tactical nuke an infringement of our second amendment rights?

During the time it was written the equivalent of billionaires in those times could own fleets of armed vessels and train and equip their men with weapons, so it is arguable that the founding fathers would not put restrictions on F-15s.

In regards to nuclear weapons, this may fall outside of the scope of what the framers envisioned. The second amendment gave the public the ability to act as a military power against a tyrannical government. But nuclear weapons fall outside of the classification of normal arms, as even the militaries of foreign countries are prohibited by international regulations from building and possessing nuclear weapons beyond the countries which already had them, since their proliferation could cause nuclear winter and human extinction. The usage of nuclear weapons against human targets is also tantamount to genocide, even if used solely against military targets, due to atmospheric and land-based radioactive effect, would provoke an international response, and is extremely taboo.

Nuclear weapons are not necessary to wage a serious war, so this limitation is generally accepted by the militaries of the world, and semi-successful efforts have been underway for the eventual mutual denuclearization of existing nuclear powers.

That's a bit of a maximalist interpretation.

So in the US it's currently illegal to do pretty much anything with explosives without an explosives license.

Does this infringe on the second amendment?