Cog wrote:Newfie wrote:Cog,
No limits?Newfie wrote:Cog,
50 cal and over?
Bazookas?
Shoulder launched air to air missiles?
Personal tanks?
Fully armed F-16s?
The Founders were heavily influenced by the philosopher John Locke from which the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were derived. The basic concept is that of self-ownership. Meaning, that you have the right as a human to protect yourself. Such a right does not derive or is established by government but is inherent in being a human being. A gift from God if you are religiously bent, but can be derived by an atheist who believes in the value of humans.
Most people in the world recognize the right of owning oneself and asserting that right to prevent others from doing you harm. The most efficient way to assert that right is by use of a weapon. The Founders did not specify the type of weapon to be used for self-defense of oneself and by extension the community at large. Arms were understood as those arms that could be employed by an individual in defense of an individual or in the case of a group of individuals in an ad hoc militia. Defense of the community or nation if you will.
My right to self-defense or of that of my group or community must have discretion though. I can create no greater harm to other innocents through my use of my right to self-defense. The use of chemical, nuclear, or area weapons such as a B-2 bomber would not follow under the category of all human rights being of the same equality. Such weapons do not discriminate between the guilty and the non-guilty. With respect to the intent of the Second Amendment and my personal beliefs about defense of one self, any weapon capable of being employed by an individual and whose use targets only those who would usurp my rights to self, would be protected.
People always bring up nuclear weapons or bombers when they want to infringe on some individual right by the use of the extreme case.
Cog,
That was very well stated. Thank you.
I don't want to wade too far into this but think background checks=good. Other personal arms should be available to non prohibited people (that includes arms currently regulated by tax stamp and not typically available over the counter). Concealed carry should be a universal right provided you pass the background check. I'd prefer that people be trained but several states are in the process of demonstrating that such a requirement isn't necessary to safe carry. Bump stocks are accessories and not integral to a rifle's function and are intended to circumvent the full auto laws already on the books. I have no problem with them being regulated or "banned" as they are not integral to the function (unlike optics, sights, magazines, etc.).
There is a reason the right to keep and bear arms follows immediately after the right to free speech, press and religion. Sometimes, you've got to fight for your life and sometimes you've got to fight for those freedoms. This coming from a tree hugging, social service-oriented, environmentally aware liberal.