Tim Barton: The Second Amendment Guarantees The Right To Own The Same Level Of Weapons As The Gov

[Initech]

Tim Barton, who serves as the president of WallBuilders and co-host of the daily “WallBuilders Live” radio broadcast along with his father, Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton, and former Texas state legislator Rick Green, insisted today that the Second Amendment guarantees to every American the right to own “the same level of weapons” as possessed by the government.

Like his father, who insists that individual citizens have an unlimited right to own a tank or a fighter jet, Tim Barton asserted that since the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to fight off a tyrannical government, they are entitled to possess the same types of weapons that might ever be used against them.

“It was actually about protecting people from an abusive government,” Barton said. “And because of that, whatever weapons the government had, the people also had access to and in the founding era, they had the right to have it. Now, people today would say, ‘Wait a second, back then all they had was muskets.’ Yes, that’s true, but the advancement of technology that the militarilies had at the time, the people had as well.”

“The idea was we do not want to give a level of superiority to a government that could become abusive, that could become oppressive and divisive, we need the ability to protect and defend ourselves against that government,” he continued. “We wanted to make sure the people had the same means of defense as a government might have offensive weapons, so we need the same level of weapons to defend ourselves as we’re going to be attacked with because we didn’t want to disadvantage the people from being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/tim-barton-the-second-amendment-guarantees-the-right-to-own-the-same-level-of-weapons-as-the-government/

Cool! I've always wanted my own Blofeld style underwater fortress!

[ProfessorGAC]

1. When Do I Get My F-35?

With all the missiles and stuff? No i don't know how to fly a plane, but in the event of a tyrannical government, i think i can wing it.

[slater71]

15. I will take a couple of RPGs

[ProfessorGAC]

19. You Could Use Those For Hunting

Useful as an AR-15 for that application. Of course, you wouldn't have to butcher the meat. You could just scrap it out of the trees with a spatula.

[Gothmog]

2. The Heller case rejected this concept

[anarch]

3. are we sure this isn't just some kind of very commited sarcasm?

I tend to say the same kind of thing when arguing with someone over the 2nd amendment...if it truly grants an unrestricted right to bear arms, then why can't I have a few nuclear missiles? Or a battleship or something. I'll just use them for target practice, I swear...or maybe for hunting.

[Iggo]

21. Gunfucker Poe?

Hmm...hadn't thought of that.

[Hoyt]

4. More evidence that gun fanciers and promoters in this country are ignorant white wingers.

[yellowcanine]

5. But can your HOA still ban that ICBM in your backyard?

That's what I want to know.

[ProudLib72]

24. Not mine! They only require it to be no more than 20' tall and painted brown.

Honestly, this is like the single reason I have for not buying a home in a neighborhood with an HOA. You just wait until I bring this to the Supreme Court and get HOAs ruled as unconstitutional.

[Glassunion]

6. OOoooh! Can I has?

I'm sick of my neighbor leaving his floodlights on... They shine right into my den and glare a bit off the tv.

I'll start with a warning shot right over his roof... We'll take it from there.

[GoCubsGo]

22. Hmmmm... I have neighbors like that, too.

They forget to turn the back porch light off, which shines right into my bedroom window. I have been looking for blackout curtains, but I think I'd rather have one of these. A bazooka would also be acceptable. Been wanting one of those for whenever the people behind me blast their stereo at midnight.

[dalton99a]

7. Nuclear is the way to go

[Historic NY]

8. So what they want is to take on the US Military, does it extend to nukes too.

[VOX]

9. "...a government that could become abusive, that could become oppressive and divisive..."

Exactly, Mr. Barton. We're there already, and your firepower did jack shit to stop the KGOP coup. Oh, and a friendly reminder: the government has DRONES.

[bronxiteforever]

10. I guess we will get Novichock then.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. cool! I want my tank now, please

Road hogs beware.

[Aristus]

18. The fat, weak, beer-bellied momma's boys who love guns so much,

would never be able to lift the rounds into the main gun of the Abrams. And even if they could, they would never be able to match my three-second loading time. Training and physical conditioning are everything when it comes to crewing a tank.

[Glassunion]

29. To be fair, the average 120mm round anti-tank round is only about 40lbs

which is roughly the weight of a case (24 bottles) of beer.

[Aristus]

31. It's not just the weight.

It's the length (especially of the HEAT round), and the fact that you have to maneuver it very rapidly in a very tight, enclosed space. It takes a certain level of dexerity, and a lot of endurance, if one is engaged in rapid re-loading during live-fire exercises. I can't speak to the need for strength and endurance in combat operations, since my unit didn't serve in combat. Throughout all of this, one must take every care imaginable not to drop the thing, because it could spell death for you and your crewmates.

But it requires a lot more from a person who is only prepared to point a light-weight assault rifle and twitch his finger a lot.

[Glassunion]

40. I'm in no way knocking the effort involved...

I'm just saying they could probably lift it. Just like they could get a case of beer into a lifted truck.

I stated nothing about how many times they'd have to do it, the environment (the inside of a tank is... unpleasant to say the least) in which they would need to do it... compounded with the cardio level required to do it multiple times (more than once)...

On a personal level, I would not want that (or any) job within a tank. I was watching some youtube vids of them loading, firing, etc... I probably would be throwing up by about the 4th round. Not sure if you're familiar with Richard Hammond, but he had a show Crash Course (kind of like Dirty Jobs), and in one of the episodes he worked all of the roles inside the M1A2. It exhausted me just watching him fumble with the rounds.

[Aristus]

42. I did it for four years, and yeah, it could get tiring. But it was also exhilarating.

There is a kind of euphoria that comes with doing an exacting job in perfect concert with a team of crewmates. I never met a tanker who didn't absolutely love live-fire exercises, however tough and exhausting they may be.

So much of tank training is tedious; rote tasks like road-marching. (Yes, driving a unit of tanks long-distances over road and cross-country requires endless training; it's all about keeping proper spacing, avoiding collisions, becoming attuned to how much maintenance will be required prior to starting, etc.) So live-fire, despite its rigors and dangers, is like a vacation for tankers.

About those YouTube videos. I watch so many of them which depict a loader for an M1-series tank. It seems they all try to extract a round from the ammo locker, then maneuver the round horizontally back-to-front until they can ram it into the breech. It takes forever, and is very unwieldy.

They way I used to do it was extract the round from the ammo locker, grasping the end of it in my palm, then drop it between my knees (holding on to it the whole time, of course,) so the round is essentially vertically-oriented. Then I would cradle the projectile end on my left forearm, lift the round into the breech, and then ram home. When I was really pumped, I could do this whole operation in about three seconds.

[EX500rider]

28. I'd look here:

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

How about a Sherman?

[Aristus]

33. An M1 Abrams could probably take out four or five Shermans in the time it takes

for one Sherman to get off an aimed round, which would only scratch the paint of an Abrams tank.

[EX500rider]

47. No doubt..

How about the Mk1 Leopard....? Still no M1-A1 but a little more modern.. with the right depleted uranium fin-stabilized perpetrator it might get off a lucky shot....at least from the rear or sides.

http://www.armyjeeps.net/1997Leopard/index.htm

[Aristus]

48. A Leopard I sports the 105mm rifled-bore gun.

The M1-series has the 120mm smooth-bore gun.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think all of the old M-1 105's have been retrofitted with the 120mm.

The 105mm is still a powerful gun, and a well-trained Leo crew could give the Abrams a run for its money. But its mobility is slightly lower, powered by a diesel engine, as opposed to the Abrams' turbine engine, with a much greater power-to-weight ratio. Also, the old Mark I leo utilized rolled steel armor protection, whereas the Abrams uses the revolutionary Chobham armor, which would increase its survivability over the Leo.

Still, all-in-all, the Leo is a terrific tank.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. too common near me :)

I'm in Kentucky. There are Shermans on town squares and VFW posts. I want that badass Abrams -- nobody would ride yer bumper nor block you in the fast lanes.

Worked one summer (civilian, teenager) at Ft. Knox, Shipping and Receiving, Motor Pool. We packed up parts of the then-experimental Abrams for shipment to Alabama for the additional testing they were doing down yonder.

[Aristus]

49. So many Shermans were built during World War II,

military posts across the US almost always have three or four serving as lawn ornaments. Even on posts that neither train tank crews, nor host armored units.

Fort Leonard Wood, which is a Basic Training post, had two or three, IIRC.

[dameatball]

39. Crap, need a bigger garage!!

[FreepFryer]

12. Nutjob factor 9.1 and rising (n/t)

[world wide wally]

13. I need a bigger barn for my cruise missles

[rgbecker]

14. Does this kind of talk come from the romantizing of the Civil War?

We've seen what happens when a bunch of nuts feel unhappy about the government. They had the arsenal and a bunch of fanatics but still couldn't pull it off. The only gun they need is a 22 shoved up their mouth and leave the rest of us out of it.

[0rganism]

16. looks like we got the first volunteer in line for the Trump Space Force Militia

related question: where can i buy an ICBM silo?

[billh58]

17. Old right-wing promoted myth:

-Snip-

As far as scholars can tell, Jefferson never said it. Monticello.org, the official website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, says, "We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, 'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,' or any of its listed variations." The quotation (which has also been misattributed to Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist), actually was apparently said in 1914 by the eminent person-no-one's-ever-heard-of John Basil Barnhill, during a debate in St. Louis.

As bogus as the quote is the idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to create a citizenry able to intimidate the government, and that America would be a better place if government officials were to live in constant fear of gun violence. If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth. As we saw from the 2010 shootings in Tucson, Arizona, the consequences for democracy of guns in private hands, without reasonable regulation, can be dire--a society where a member of Congress cannot meet constituents without suffering traumatic brain injury, and where a federal judge cannot stop by a meeting on his way back from Mass without being shot dead.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Come on and try to overthrow the government of the United States of America you imbeciles. What a perfect way to rid ourselves of a group of malcontent, armed, traitors and cowards.

[bullimiami]

20. And with his words proves the 2nd amendment does not guarantee anything.

It’s ALL subject to interpretation.

[BoneyardDem]

23. The fact that a layman could not build a nuclear bomb, puts a hole in that thinking

[ProudLib72]

25. Whatever Space Force is getting, I want that... right now!

Something with rail guns, lasers, and hyperspace capability.

[dchill]

26. Blah, blah, blah. Just give me my nukes.

[logosoco]

27. I need one of those people who are always going into technical detail about guns because I am

not really sure what would be best for me!

[dameatball]

37. If you aren't sure, I suggest waiting for the space force weapons to come out. Then choose.

[NCTraveler]

30. I think this is a fair argument with respect to original intent.

Also an argument as to why original intent makes no sense today.

[spanone]

32. I want a tank to drive to the golf course.

[malchickiwick]

34. OK...but then ONLY for the "well-regulated" militia and NOT every Joe SixPack.

I'm perfectly fine removing the "individual right" doctrine from SA jurisprudence. I've always interpreted it to be solely a collective right, and I'm pretty sure the founders did too.

[Ilsa]

35. I'm building a hanger for my Blackbird. ;-) nt

[dameatball]

36. Is there a catalog we can look at?

[ret5hd]

41. I think it's called "Janes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Information_Group

[mshasta]

43. so where is my tank

my jets, rockets....my parade

[Girard442]

44. The Constitution sez:

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 07:34 PM - Edit history (2)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Just sayin’

[Cicada]

45. When atomic bombs are outlawed only outlaws will have atomic bombs

[mr_lebowski]

46. That's not why the 2nd Amendment was written, nor was it the intent of the authors ...

That was not it's "DESIGN" in any way.

The 'free state' is not a reference to a 'US state free from the US Federal Government', it's referring to a US State being free from a FOREIGN government. Like the one they had just fought with over the control of the country a few years earlier.

The intent was 'don't worry Carolina, you can have your own military force i.e. well-regulated militia ... made up of your citizens, who have kept 'arms' (typically at the Stockade or Fort) and are ready to 'bear them' in a military capacity... in case, for example, the Spanish Armada arrives at your shores. You won't have to wait for the Continental Army to mobilize and march from Washington DC to come and protect you and drive off the invaders, you can defend your state on your own'.

Although I'm sure at least SOME of the Statesmen who specifically lobbied the gathering where the Constitution was written for the idea of what became the 2nd amendment had 'the idea in mind' that maybe the Feds could become tyrannical and it'd be best if they cannot disarm our citizens ... that does NOT make it so that the 'DESIGN' of the 2nd Amendment ... was that.

The DESIGN was that States would be able to protect themselves from foreign invaders and internal riots and insurrection via an Armed Militia of it's own citizens.

It was also very much 'hoped' by the Founders that there would never even be a Federal Standing Army ... that State Militia's WOULD BE our 'National Army' basically. I'd argue that to the extent that a 2A nut 'supports' the US Military (apart from the Navy which was specifically called for due to the need for ships and trained military folk who knew how to sail them and fight with them), they are being 'untrue' to the real design of the 2A.