KiteEatingTree
Plinker
- Sep 9, 2009
- 23
- 1
It means private ownership and trained skills in small arms, crew served arms and heavy weapons (note historic examples of firearms, rifles, cannon, and cavalry).
So, yeah, if I could afford one, I should have every right to a BTR in the barn.
im all about it...up until we start talking about literal artillery. i dont know how well i could sleep at night if my neighbor had a 155 in the backyard. and why stop there? why not main battle tanks? or jet fighters? stealth bombers? nuclear arms?
If your neighbor only has a back yard to defend, then I'd say that artillery pieces wouldn't have a legitimate place in his hands. If your neighbor owns 4,000 acres in Montana, then you could make an argument for light artillery, but, can you really wield artillery with absolute responsibility?
I agree, EXCEPT....
Rights are not tied to need. Rights are not tied to reasonability. Rights are not tied to risk. Rights are simply rights.
But back where we do agree...
If the right existed for privately owned artillery in 1776, I cannot see how we can limit it today.
And as for my neighbor...
My neighbor is enough of an idiot that he is as likely get killed playing with 50 lbs of gunpowder as a 155 shell.
(i.e. Paco and I were in agreement until he tried to be reasonable in that last paragraph, then we had a slight divergence of thought.)
surely you see the difference between a cannon and the aforementioned attack helicopter though. its not rights, its not responsibility, its capability. should someone be allowed to possess and handle something so destructive as modern howitzers? your neighbor has a bad day. loses his job. but hes still got his 155. now hes lobbing shells all over the place because he doesnt give a crap. nothing you can do except die if he picks your house as his first target. id prefer to limit what private citizens can own. i guess im left leaning when it comes to this...?
I agree, EXCEPT....
Rights are not tied to need. Rights are not tied to reasonability. Rights are not tied to risk. Rights are simply rights.
[sic]
(i.e. Paco and I were in agreement until he tried to be reasonable in that last paragraph, then we had a slight divergence of thought.)
youre right. a rifle and a 155mm howitzer have the same destructive capabilities. i concede. MOABs for everyone!He could simply shoot you too. Is that too much destructive power?
surely you see the difference between a cannon and the aforementioned attack helicopter though. its not rights, its not responsibility, its capability. should someone be allowed to possess and handle something so destructive as modern howitzers? your neighbor has a bad day. loses his job. but hes still got his 155. now hes lobbing shells all over the place because he doesnt give a crap. nothing you can do except die if he picks your house as his first target. id prefer to limit what private citizens can own. i guess im left leaning when it comes to this...?
It means to wear or carry. To keep at the ready. As much as you like wordplay you might find this thread enlightening.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/5889-the_unabridged_second_amendment.html