In response to:

Expect Civil Disobedience if Politicians Try to Undermine the Second Amendment

Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:31 AM
"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." The first part, phrases 1 and 2, tell you why we have the second amendment. The second part, phrases 3 and 4 tell you how it is done. If the government tells you that you can't buy a particular kind of arm, be it a sword, a crossbow, a knife, or any kind of gun, they are infringing on your right to keep arms. If the government tells you where you can or cannot carry any weapon you own, then they are infringing on your right to bear arms. There are NO legal gun laws in this country.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:31 AM
USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

We are the militia, you are the militia. The states can call up the militia but arguments that the militia is the national guard are false.

The wise people who wrote our constitution intended that the citizens be as well armed as soldiers, the same as Switzerland is today. That means full automatic weapons and any other weapons a person can physically carry.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:34 AM
Chris: So you are arguing that a private citizen can have an ICBM with an atomic warhead?
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:54 AM
Only if he can carry it on his on person, with his own strength.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:00 AM
Then a suitcase a-bomb is cool?
jwarrior Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:59 AM
What part of Shall NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand? Go back to school and study ENGLISH. Moron
jwarrior Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:00 AM
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?
Beverly143 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:21 AM
Tactical nukes are just about that size and one more little factoid - tactical nukes are what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ICBM's are many times more powerful.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:09 PM
Jwarrior; I wouldn't trade vocabularies with you, and the fact that you read into my question an argument against a person owning their own nuclear device makes you all the more idiotic. You appear to be the person too stupid to read a question.
P.S. I have a copy of the U.S. Constitution sitting next to me, do you?
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:53 PM
matt,there's no such thing as a "suitcase nuke".
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:56 PM
WMD is a STRAWMAN. don't waste our time. they are not individual arms.

also note that SCOTUS in US v Miller asked if the weapon in question was applicable to,or of use to a militia. Militia were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regulars used AT THAT TIME.
ppotts Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:57 PM
damned straight if he wants to.
ppotts Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:03 PM
And your vocabulary and your constitution copy makes you someone that we should all step back and look up to? Thats what got us into this mess. people with huge vocabularies and no common sense. They walk among us and they breed but they are not self sufficient. If you want to carry on a debate then it is better to not throw all kinds of silly elements into it. It just makes you sound like a commie.
OwlCreekObserver Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:24 PM
So...you're actually saying that an ICBM is a nuclear bomb? That's like saying a freight train is coal. I think you're out of your element here.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:30 PM
If he can afford it, WHY NOT ??
Actually your argument is a study in stupidity or is that absurdity?
Either way its only something a moron would say.
Tionico Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 3:46 PM
no. The definition of "arms" in those times was military grade weapons able to be transported and deployed by one soldier. Sorry, your ICBM is a little large for ME to carry, and too complicated for lil ol Me to operate solo. Now, a tank might be another thing... I thinik I can get in and drive one of those, AND figure out how to use the fire control systems solo. Might be a bit slow, but.... and a BMG 50 or Patriot? Sure thing..... see Alexander Hamilton in Fed Papers. And HE is pro strong central government.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:07 PM
Matt,WHERE does one buy an ICBM or nuke warhead?
the government OWNS the designs for them,and the weapons manufacturers make them under contract. the manufacturers are not free to sell them to just anyone. Same for modern fighter jets,MBTs,other armor.
also,fissionables are strictly regulated,same for explosives. then there's the "destructive devices" laws.

WMD,major missile systems,and the like are STRAWMEN.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:10 PM
Bev,the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes were NOT "tactical nukes".
they were 10-20 KT,modern ICBM warheads are around 100KT. "tactical" nukes are 1 KT or smaller. Russia may have some 1MT nukes,but you can fit more warheads on a missile when they're around 100 KT,or have a longer range for your missile.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:15 PM
why not buy a nuke? ?
a nuke is not an inert object,it contains explosives that get unstable over time,the fissionables and electronics need maintenance. explosives or a missile needs proper storage,you can't store them in residential areas like you can with small arms ammo. Chemicals or biologicals leak.

If a WMD had an "accident",say in a home fire,it would take out MANY people.
use some common sense.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:17 PM
a "Patriot"? you have ANY idea of how BIG those are?
or how they have to be stored? just the rocket motors are extremely hazardous.

People already own .50 BMG rifles and the semi-auto Browning M2 replica of the "machine gun" AFAIK,none have been used in crimes.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:44 PM
What I want personally is enough firepower to protect myself from the government coming to confiscate my arms. I don't want a nuke.
The point is, the government has them and tanks and armored cars and highly trained and armed people that are going to take away our guns, possibly in my lifetime (the next 25 years), if not, my sons. I know the limits of what I can own defensively. The real straw man is thinking we can stop them with force of arms. Our only chance is convincing those people that are coming that they are next.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:47 PM
Only a moron calls names in lieu of an argument.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:49 PM
Read what I said,

" So you are arguing that a private citizen can have an ICBM with an atomic warhead?"

I periodically share public opinion data, either because I’m encouraged by the results or because I think that the research helps show how to frame issues.

Examples include polling data on personal retirement accounts, the dangers of big government, support for spending caps, and viability of class warfare tax policy.

But I’ve been very narrowly focused. Just about all the polls I’ve shared have been about some...

Related Tags: Politicians