Is it unconstitutional for me not to be able to possess a nuclear or biological weapon?

[stray cat]

After all, I might need one for my militia. Is there any reason to draw a line at guns including assault rifles and the works?

[leftofthedial]

1. there is no reason to draw any line anywhere.

The Constitution (now that a "militia" is a meaningless nothing) guarantees you the right to own a nuke, sarin, any weapon you wish.

[slackmaster]

2. No, all rights are subject to reasonable regulation

Is there any reason to draw a line at guns including assault rifles and the works?

Assault rifles have been regulated since 1934, and nobody is seriously challenging that.

But Nuclear Straw Man is fun to play once in a while.

[moondust]

8. Where did you hear that?

Got a link?

The challenges will come. There is nothing in the Constitution that says I cannot have some private nukes or any other weapons I want and SCOTUS now says sensible restrictions cannot be placed on the 2nd Amendment.

[slackmaster]

9. It's discussed in today's ruling

Read it.

...SCOTUS now says sensible restrictions cannot be placed on the 2nd Amendment.

Um, no, it does not say that. Not by a long shot.

[moondust]

11. Excuse me...not in Washington, D.C.

As of today The NRA has already filed the same kind of court case in Chicago and no doubt other cities. It is only a matter of time before any and all laws that place any kind of sensible restrictions on the 2nd Amendment will be struck down. By SCOTUS if necessary.

Care to explain this: Not by a long shot.??

[Recursion]

13. They're filing against cities that BAN handguns completely

Completely banning the weapon most often chosen for self-defense isn't a "reasonable" regulation by anybody's standards.

[moondust]

14. Reasonable?

What does that have to do with it? As far as I know the Constitution doesn't mention it. Washington, D.C., believed for 30+ years that it had reasonable laws on the books as do a number of other localities. Now five right-wing judges have decided they are all unreasonable.

[slackmaster]

20. There is nothing reasonable about a total ban on handguns

If YOU want to ban them from YOUR HOME, that is your right.

[Indenturedebtor]

24. No they also said that the gov can't force people to put trigger locks on, etc

They basically ruled that no restrictions can be placed.

[slackmaster]

33. It's clear that you have either not read the ruling or not understood it

They basically ruled that no restrictions can be placed.

No, the ruling explicitly says that there can be reasonable restrictions.

[slackmaster]

19. My "Not by a long shot" comment was in response to the hyperbolic statement

"SCOTUS now says sensible restrictions cannot be placed on the 2nd Amendment."

The ruling, which you really should read, explicitly says that it is not to be interpreted as striking down restrictions like not allowing convicted felons to buy or have guns.

It is only a matter of time before any and all laws that place any kind of sensible restrictions on the 2nd Amendment will be struck down.

No, only unreasonable restrictions that are unconstitutional will be struck down. Sensible ones will stay in place, and new ones that are actually sensible may be added.

[Somawas]

15. A total ban is hardly a "reasonable regulation."

Maybe you should go read the opinion before spouting more foolishness and claptrap.

[moondust]

16. The civilized world

disagrees with your goofiness. The other advanced democracies don't want your wild west gun culture and murder rate. Some ban guns, some control them otherwise. Get used to it.

[Somawas]

17. Go read the opinion.

You're just being a drama queen.

[slackmaster]

21. If you don't like it, feel free to move to one of those other "advanced democracies"

I'll keep my guns. Get used to it.

[moondust]

47. "America: Love It or Leave It"

And out comes the old standby redneck mantra! And so soon! How long have you and your NRA buddies been planning this and counting on Bush's redneck SCOTUS to make it happen? I'll bet even that tiny penis of yours is visible today!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[slackmaster]

51. Wow, a sexual put-down

How original.

Losing really sucks, doesn't it?

[Pavulon]

39. Geneva, safest city I have been to..

20% of homes have these. BTW this is a real select fire rifle, not a scarry replica covered under a joke ban.

Gun control is for those to lazy or stupid to address root cause. A crutch.

[ElkHunter]

45. You're wrong

There is nothing in the Constitution that says I cannot have some private nukes or any other weapons I want and SCOTUS now says sensible restrictions cannot be placed on the 2nd Amendment.

First, the word "regulated" appears in the Second Amendment which means that some restrictions can be placed on gun ownership, including which types of firearms can be owned by citizens. An earlier Supreme Court case involving the 1934 National Firearms Act established this precident. In the Miller case mentioned above, the plaintiff argued that he had the Constitutional right to own any firearm used by the military. The Supreme Court disagreed and this earlier decision was not overturned by yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Second, if you'll do some historical research I think you'll find that the word "arms" found in the Second Amendment refers specifically to "small arms" not artillary, tanks, or nuclear weapons.

[backscatter712]

25. Slackmaster got it.

The SCOTUS ruling stated that while individuals have a right to keep and bear arms, the state has a right to impose regulations for public safety.

Somehow, I'd bet that personal possession of a nuclear device will still be verboten...

[Gabi Hayes]

3. according to Wayne LaPierre, no, no, and yes for this one:

fifty calibre rifles, like the above sniper job, are just AOK with him

[Recursion]

12. OK, I give up

What's wrong with the rifle? It's way too big and heavy to be used in a crime, not to mention that ammo is like 5 bucks a round. Why shouldn't a target shooter or big-game hunter have one?

[Gabi Hayes]

23. fire away

it IS a sniper's rifle

lots of other uses, for sure

digging foundations

punching sewage lines in your concrete block walls

[Recursion]

28. Umm

digging foundations

I have a great idea: let's learn the actual capabilities of a firearm before we make asses of ourselves :eyes:

A "sniper rifle" is a rifle used by a sniper; snipers prefer many different calibers in many different situations.

[Gabi Hayes]

54. ummm....lighten up Francis

time to go to the bank and see if you can borrow a sense of humor

[jeepnstein]

27. That thing is useless in a drive-by...

What possible use does that thing have to a criminal? Really now, I want to know. How many .50's have been used in robberies, domestic violence, or even shooting the neighbor's poodle? Gun control advocates would be better served by using some common sense.

[Recursion]

31. I normally don't like quoting TV shows when talking politics

But Sorkin really nailed what's going with this culture war:

"You Democrats don't dislike guns, you dislike people who like guns."

That really is our problem, I think: not that people have been duped into thinking our party is a bunch of gun-grabbers, but that people pick up on a very palpable disdain and intolerance from some people in our party for people who like guns.

[jeepnstein]

34. Sad but true..

I've been a Party activist for going on twenty five years now and I'll agree with you. We're every bit as intolerant as the other guys.

The way out of that is to embrace the Second Amendment as an individual's Constitutional right. That would put the other side into a whirl.

I don't personally support abortion as a means of family planning. Our government has chosen to protect it as a constitutional right, though, so I must be willing to allow others the opportunity to exercise their choice in the matter. The fact that Roe v. Wade was written by a Nixon appointee is little consolation.

[papapi]

30. I can't argue with THAT!

[rockymountaindem]

4. Are you allowed to yell "fire" for no reason in a crowded theater?

You are not. Yet, we still have the right to free speech. You are not allowed to have *all* kinds of weapons, but you are now apparently entitled to those deemed reasonable for personal protection. That seems straightforward to me.

[jody]

5. You might read the Heller opinion before you ask such questions, particularly the portion below.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[baldguy]

6. I want a Vorlon planet-killer

I gotta defend myself!

[jeepnstein]

29. I fully support your right but how are you going to get it in your house?

[Recursion]

7. Well, read the opinion

Scalito was clear that the 80-year-old ban on machine guns isn't unconstitutional.

Nukes, incidentally, are governed by international treaty which is co-supreme with the Constitution as the law of the land, so that's a special case.

[SergeyDovlatov]

10. Perfectly fine. It may invalidate your home insurance policy though

[-..__...]

18. Better check your HMO coverage too...

and verify that resulting adverse health effects are covered.

If they are, I shudder to think what the co-pay would be.

[slackmaster]

22. No insurance company charges extra for keeping a gun in your home, AND

No insurance company offers a "Gun-Free Home" discount.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

[aikoaiko]

26. It astonishes me that there are still "the sky is falling" posts about gun control

The anchor points for discussing what restrictions are reasonable have been established by SCOTUS and now a reasonable conversation can occur among reasonable people.

We will no longer hear legitimate people talk about collective rights, only national guard can have arms, or talk of gun bans on guns that commonly used by law abiding folks. We will also not hear that there should not be any gun laws -- mostly because few people ever said that in the first place, but SCOTUS has affirmed that some gun control is reasonable.

[papapi]

32. Who will possess the guns if U.S. citizens don't. Guns aren't going away. . . .

no matter how many people dream that dream. I, for one, am glad I have the right to own a gun, even if I don't currently have access to one and never have. Now that my Mother is dead, her Colt six shooter is packed away somewhere in the storage shed, but if the time comes when I think I need that gun in order to protect my civil rights you can bet I'll be locating that Colt in a hurry.

[guitar man]

35. I want what the cops have

no more, no less. Whatever the law enforcement agencies are allowed to wield, I want to be able to have the same.

[Pavulon]

36. You can have it..

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

have dollars can buy. Required background and tax stamp. Is a pain in the ass.

[guitar man]

42. ooh yeah

I want this one :evilgrin:

http://www.autoweapons.com/photos07/jan/1709fnfal.html

[Pavulon]

43. Timing M2s

took all the love for automatic weapons from my life at the age of 22. Teeth probably still loose 15 years later.

[guitar man]

44. ouch

they would shake the hell out of you, no doubt :(

[Irreverend IX]

50. That's a nice looking FAL.

Doesn't look like it's ever been shot. But the recoil of .308 is so much that full-auto fire is almost useless with it; that's one of the reasons the US and other NATO militaries abandoned .308 rifles for 5.56. Might as well buy a semiauto FAL for $2000 as opposed to a full-auto one for $25,000. Full auto is overrated anyway; I've read that many American contractors in Iraq use semiauto ARs that they purchased in the US.

[jeepnstein]

37. Be careful what you ask for.

My department doesn't issue AR15's just shotguns that are not NFA items. Oh, and you'll be saddled with a crappy Sig .40 as a pistol. You can go to about any gun store and get what they issue.

[guitar man]

40. well, that's not exactly what I meant

I was talking about equal levels of weaponry with the best armed agencies, and that includes the ATF. Whatever it is legal for them to array against us, I want the opportunity to have also.


I hear you about the Sig though, I certainly wouldn't trade my 1911 for one. ;)

[Pavulon]

41. NFA transferable stuff is out there

and available. It is a pain in the ass to get and own, but you can purchase anything from an MP5 to Browning M2.

I have not seen a 240golf out there but i would not be surprised.

NFA Legal for YOU to own. (Unless you live in CA or other place that locally bans them)

[jeepnstein]

48. I knew that.

My department doesn't go with full-auto mostly because it's NOT available to regular citizens. Our Sheriff is kind of special that way. We do have a couple of M16A1's from military surplus but they've got sear blockers and I don't think anyone has qualified to shoot one. Our state police have different weapons on their SWAT team and they'll come running if needed.

Personally, I prefer a shotgun over an AR as a regular duty weapon. Oh, and the Sig is a sore spot because I've been able to weasel out of transitioning from a 1911 to one for a while now. They'll catch up with me eventually.

The heart of the matter is really what a militiaman would be reasonably expected to be able to produce if the call to arms were ever made, Heaven help us all if it ever does. I would think a semi-auto AR15 with the same barrel length and features as an M4 would be sufficient.

[Pavulon]

38. You can follow procedure to acquire

contracts to develop nuclear weapons. At that point you can purchase the materials required to make and assemble thermonuclear weapon systems for the government if you like.

Plenty of private companies involved.

Or you can just buy the pantex facility. May set you back a few bucks.

[CK_John]

46. I'm sure you would be violating most zoning laws. n/t

[hunter]

49. I'm holding out for a cruise missile...

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

One never knows, I might need one to defend myself.

[Pavulon]

53. Open up shop..

start a corp. in the state of NV. Hire some smart guys. No law that says you can't have one. Develop a better tomahawk or go big and work an a reduced radar signature ACM.

Your home owners may not let you store ordinance (nuclear weapons delivery systems may need a rider or some such) at home. But as for a place of business, you are good to go.

Bushmaster started out small. picatinny started small too.

[Greyhound]

52. Depends on how you are denied. There is no Constitutional guarantee

of availability or access, just the right to keep and bear.

[spoony]

55. What I find funny is that people still post this thinking they're clever

It has to be the oldest, worst chestnut in the anti-Bill-of-Rights crowd's arsenal. Pun fully intended.

[Jackeen]

56. Not sure how an individual could 'bear' a nuke.

Assuming that 'bear' pretty much means 'carry for the use of', I can't think of any which are readily carried by the individual. Even the smallest one, the old Davey Crocketts pretty much require multiple persons or a vehicle to transport.

Besides, man-portable nukes aren't exactly 'weapons in common use', so I think it fails that standard as well.