Shall not be infringed, what does that mean?

[HKShooter65]

350,000,000 guns in private hands in US.
7 trillion rounds of ammo.
If we were a problem they would know it.

Inveterate fact checker weighing in here.
Let us not disseminate misinformation.
7,000,000,000,000 rounds fails to pass the whiff test!

That is 20,000 rounds per private firearm. Check my (7/3.5)*(10 to the 12th)/(10 to the 8th) arithmetic.

I just might have that many 22lr rounds but that is still divided by a dozen 22lr private arms.

 

[HKShooter65]

Back to the OP......

"shall not be infringed" is a pretty unassailable concept.

Why does no-one address the critical word that the 2A fails to define.

That word is "arms"

When the 2A was penned the word "arms" meant rifles, pistols and shotguns. Maybe it meant cannons and mortars too.

You guys who would own nukes, hellfire missiles and low orbiting offensive infrared laser satellites are pushing the plausible definition of that particular word.

I realize discussing the 18th century definition of the word "arms" is a threat to our 2A rights because 10 round mags did not, in 1791, even exist. Even Richard Gatling's gun did not exist until 70+ years after ratification of the 2A. Mikhail Kalishnikov's AK and Eugene Stoner's AR came closer to 2 centuries later.

So many arguments are pointless because of the lack of defined terms.
Debate class 101.

I will respectfully ask forgiveness for being a bit inflammatory and more than a bit contrary.
Though, I'll not apologize for being a diehard empirical observer.

 

[Kar98]

If the 2A only applies to 18th century arms like muzzle loading muskets, then the first only applies to standing on a soap box outside the town tavern, not to the high speed assault internet developed for the military.

 

[HKShooter65]

If the 2A only applies to 18th century arms like muzzle loading muskets, then the first only applies to standing on a soap box outside the town tavern, not to throw high speed assault internet developed for the military.

Valid, though arguable, retort.

1A applies to language based communication, methinks.

Most reasonable people agree there are limits.
I cannot drive around with pipe bombs on my front seat or convert my AR-15 to full auto or buy a hand grenade in a Walmart parking lot outside Fort Hood.
That is "2A infringement" that most accept and a few disagree on.

Showing my age, but I legally converted a rifle to full auto in 1984. Would love to see those rights returned. Some would say my 2A right was infringed because I had to pay $200 to convert that rifle, eh?

 

[Kar98]

It also applies to gestures and pictures.

 

[HKShooter65]

It also applies to gestures and pictures.

Agree.

Gestures and pictures......with limits........like hate-propegation or child porn.

We are, quite likely, agreeing on everything.

My, oft disliked, observation is that there have to be limits. Making pipe bombs or racing in school zones are limits on our freedom.

It's where the limiting boundaries are drawn that foment the dissent and rebellion.

g'nite. The spousal personage is requesting my company.

 

[benenglish]

I realize discussing the 18th century definition of the word "arms" is a threat to our 2A rights because 10 round mags did not, in 1791, even exist.

Well, the Puckle gun and volley guns existed. Those were capable of firing 10 rounds or more very quickly.

 

[benenglish]

Gestures and pictures......with limits........like hate-propegation or child porn.

Both of which, when you study them closely, are damnably vexing.

Without writing a book, current laws on hate speech (inside America, but especially outside) and child porn (inside America, don't know about elsewhere) are too restrictive. They have deviated from their original intent, protecting people, to do far more trampling on civil rights in the name of making people feel like they've accomplished something, even if that something is terrible.

 

[vmax]

If the 2A only applies to 18th century arms like muzzle loading muskets, then the first only applies to standing on a soap box outside the town tavern, not to the high speed assault internet developed for the military.

Read Heller
Arms that you can carry

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Back to the OP......

"shall not be infringed" is a pretty unassailable concept.

Why does no-one address the critical word that the 2A fails to define.

That word is "arms"

When the 2A was penned the word "arms" meant rifles, pistols and shotguns. Maybe it meant cannons and mortars too.

You guys who would own nukes, hellfire missiles and low orbiting offensive infrared laser satellites are pushing the plausible definition of that particular word.

I realize discussing the 18th century definition of the word "arms" is a threat to our 2A rights because 10 round mags did not, in 1791, even exist. Even Richard Gatling's gun did not exist until 70+ years after ratification of the 2A. Mikhail Kalishnikov's AK and Eugene Stoner's AR came closer to 2 centuries later.

So many arguments are pointless because of the lack of defined terms.
Debate class 101.

I will respectfully ask forgiveness for being a bit inflammatory and more than a bit contrary.
Though, I'll not apologize for being a diehard empirical observer.

I say lets apply the 18th century view, because it settles the question.

What is the difference between a Brown Bess 1776 issue musket and a M 4 issue?? Magazines, wood vs plastic stock, rate of fire and I could go on. But if you think that is the difference you are wrong in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

BOTH are exactly the same thing, they are (in todays terms) Assault Rifles. Yes, the far left and anti's have for years tried to convince us that the 2nd only applies to weapons of that era...you really have to be some kind of special stupid to buy into that argument. The 2nd does NOT address mechanics it addresses FUNCTIONALITY. If the left/anti's are correct then the Brown Bess 1776 Musket should be the standard issue in our military TODAY!

Bear Arms. This actually goes back to the Roman days IIRC. It started with the salute, open palm facing the person. The purpose of which was to show that in you had you did not have a knife, spear, rock or whatever. Today we still do that. To 'bear' is to carry. Arms is what you carry with. To bear arms means weapons you can carry on your persons. That said this now begs the question about crew served weapons. Is this covered by the 2nd? I don't think so and if someone can make a legit argument that it does please post up...but remember SCOTUS said the 2nd was an INDIVIDUAL right...I don't see any carry straps on a 105mm split tail.

Hate Speech: Some years ago Congress gave us hate speech laws. The PURPOSE of these laws will be and result in CONTROL over what you say and who says it. This will also be the tool the Govt uses in the coming Conservative Purge. Blasphemy is the old term for Hate speech and that would get you burned at the stake. Hate speech laws are simply another term for Blasphemy. Where does it lead? History is your friend and teacher. It began with the church and speaking against GOD, but that morphed into speaking against the govt in any fashion or form.

Hate speech laws: The GOVT Controlling the narrative on TV, controlling what you say and controlling what you think. History tells us over and over again this will be used against those who speak that which the govt does not agree and if you cannot speak, what are the chances that the Gov is gonna let your run around with a gun???

 

[Kar98]

 

[Ole Cowboy]

What is STUPID?

 

[Kar98]

Your incoherent, pointless ramblings. I can't even figure out what you're arguing for or against. Maybe you WOULD be better off on a soap box in front of the town tavern.

 

[TheDan]

I want one with it's own trailer, so there!

They exist. Wheels look way too small to me, but apparently they were that way so they could be knocked out and the trailer solidly rest on the ground.

Gestures and pictures......with limits........like hate-propegation or child porn.

It's bizarre to me that you would equate child porn to free speech or any part of this discussion. Child porn is wrong because it is the gains from directly harming someone. A person owning a quad 50 harms no one.

 

[easy rider]

A person owning a quad 50 harms no one.

Unless it's your house I mistakenly targeted.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Your incoherent, pointless ramblings. I can't even figure out what you're arguing for or against. Maybe you WOULD be better off on a soap box in front of the town tavern.

Then why don't you just quote me and address it. Come on, calling me "Fucking stupid" does not accomplish anything, in fact only shows you lacked the courage to say something meaningful. Its clear you are so upset you were unable to reply other than to attack.

No need to hide behind the keyboard, speak up, I am listening and open.

 

[easy rider]

Wow!

 

[Kar98]

I did address the issue on varying levels, you remained obtuse, beat your own chest for your imagined cleverness, clapped your own back for your confused "insights", and now I'm just calling you names.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

They exist. Wheels look way too small to me, but apparently they were that way so they could be knocked out and the trailer solidly rest on the ground.
View attachment 134769

It's bizarre to me that you would equate child porn to free speech or any part of this discussion. Child porn is wrong because it is the gains from directly harming someone. A person owning a quad 50 harms no one.

Yea, they are available, run <$10,000 depending upon condition and how complete (does NOT count the cost of the 4 M2 50's).

Yes wheels are small to make this easy to remove and move around. Common employment was truck mounted (2 ½ Ton truck) or a fixed ground mount as you stated.

 

[TheDan]

Unless it's your house I mistakenly targeted.

true... but assault, murder (accidental or intentional), and destruction of property are already illegal so the harm you would do by being an idiot with a quad 50 is already covered by law.