Types of arms protected by the second amendment

Great fuel mileage, too! 500 gallon capacity and 289 mile operational range… :rofl: All that for only $3.17 million.

Just my 2 cents here, but technically We civilians (We the People) do own nuclear warheads. The government doesn’t own them. They are the caretakers of them but all of the military equipment is technically owned by We the People. I get what both of you are saying though. But as Dave said Elon Musk does own the necessary item to build a rocket and send them to space. Those items are highly dangerous and if one crashed or some other mishap it would level your house or your block. And he is a private citizen. I myself have been to many air shows where private citizens bring in their military aircraft (fighters, bombers) and I have no issue with that, because a few adjustments and and loading of certain items and they are a weapon again. I even seen owners of tanks. Granted they are not modern tanks but again a few adjustments and they are a weapon. And now that the A-10 is leaving behind it’s military service it will only be a matter of time before I start seeing them flown by private citizens as I see P-47’s, Mustangs, and B-17 bombers. So yes should I be able to own one sure why not. If I can afford the upkeep and the purchase of it. Just my opinion though.

2 Likes

Would love to have that parked in the backyard. My house has no basement so it would act as a much needed storm shelter and would make a great play house for my son. Is there a way to lock out the main gun so my son doesn’t turn the neighbors house into a pile of rubble?:wink:

1 Like

It’s all good. I’ve not been trying to express a legal opinion or a logical argument in any of this, I’m just saying that even as a 2A supporter, there comes a point where I get uneasy. I know people that own tanks and P51 mustangs, and I never gave it a second thought. If you told me some Parris Hilton type was flying around in a fully loaded A-10, that would make me uncomfortable. And if you told me someone has personal possession of a nuclear warhead, I’d be outraged.

I’ve asked a couple times, does this make me a hypocrite? Maybe. But I think a lot of us- even 2A supporters- have limits on what they would trust their neighbors to operate. Others don’t, apparently. To each his own.

Based on the difficulties we’ve had just amongst ourselves, it’s no small wonder to me that we can’t reach the gun control advocates.

1 Like

When one advocates for gun control, does that not make one exactly that, a gun control advocate? I understand your feelings, as there are people I don’t trust driving, much less handling a firearm, both can be quite deadly. However, we have laws that punish people that do harm to others. There is nothing that can be done to prevent someone from causing harm.

We all would like to limit danger to ourselves and others, but no law nor ban has ever accomplished that. Curtailment of our rights has only led to making firearm ownership more onerous, costly and legally perilous. It also is discriminatory, as states with the most restrictive laws have the lowest rates of ownership by minorities and women; whereas the highest rates of firearm ownership are for old, wealthy white men. I believe in our country’s founding principle of egalitarianism.

My National Guard Unit had one parked outside and later inside for training. They’re awesome. Coolest vehicle I ever road on.

2 Likes

I don’t think the meaning of the ‘militia’ is of primary importance. There is much discussion in the Federalist Papers about the militia, and the standing army, but one point is always clear, the militia comes from the “People”. There is a single statement of fact that Madison makes in federalist 46. He says, “…besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…”. We can argue the meaning of militia, but we can not argue from where it originates. The Militia comes from the people volunteers and not some standing select group. They become “well regulated” after formation.
For those hung up on the “militia” phrase. First the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is clear and is parallel to that used in the First and Fourth Amendments. To remind you those words follow: “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Simply put the words “the people” mean exactly the same thing through out our founding papers. Thus the Second Amendment means exactly the same thing that it would have meant had the prefatory phrase about the militia been omitted The “People” are the same as the referenced ones who “do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” The “People” are one and the same for all our guaranteed natural rights. The “People” are all the citizens of the states.

3 Likes

It is interesting to see the replies to my post on this. Lots of thoughts. The thing is, and as I tried to point out, whatever any of us think our rights to keep and bear arms should be, and however any of us might interpret the constitution , is really in large part an academic exercise. The landmark decision of SCOTUS in the Heller case is the final and operative authority on much of what folks here are chiming in with.
If everyone would read the Heller decision fully and carefully, a more productive discussion could be had. Except for those who refuse to accept the court’s holdings in the case, which are folks that I would not view as true patriots ( unless they just misunderstand the decision)

Using your logic, we should believe that the Dred Scott decision was correct. One of its points for the decision was that it would give freed blacks the RKBA. I will not cast aspersions at you for your believing in racism, as I believe you just misunderstood the decision.

I understand what your saying here. That said, I’m more concerned about the guy that pulls up in front of a federal building in a rented moving truck, then gets out and walks away, than I am the Uber-rich buying military surplus equipment. Just like a food guy with a gun stopping a mass shooter, a plane of the A-10 variety would have the attention of air traffic control. If that plane were to open fire, a couple of Supersonic fighter jets would be in their way to intercept, and the pilot of the rogue plane would be held accountable. Just the same as how machine guns are almost never used in the commission of a crime, so would it be with tanks, and war planes.

2 Likes

His is self driving.

2 Likes

Ha ha. Yeah, and it has to be recharged every 150 miles.

2 Likes

The Heller case may be the latest SC ruling on the second amendment but there was nothing final about it. It was a narrow ruling verifying that the word people actually meant all the people and not some subset that may or may be considered part of a militia. It was also stated in that ruling that the right could be limited. But those limitations are not really spelled out and we’re left to be decided in future cases.

2 Likes

“A terrorist is simply someone who owns a bomb but has no Air Force to deliver it.” ~ I forget who said that but still find it an interesting statement.

2 Likes