Should you be able to buy an ICBM? Or nuclear weapons?

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Question for the people who take the 2A very serisouly, no insult intended.

I was having a debate on the Facebook page of a local talkshow host about gun control. Which is a pretty hot topic around these parts.

I jokingly referred to one of the guests saying that the 2A should extend to any and all weapons, and a FLOOD of people came out taking my comment totally seriously. That was a huge surprise. At first I thought they were joking, then it become clear they didnt.


So, for the people who follow the 2ndA to the word, which clearly expresses that we have a right to bear arms.

Should that extend to landmines, fighter jets, nuclear weapons, ICBMs, submarines, chemical weapons, C4, fully armed tanks and APCs and things along that nature? After all, they are armaments. If you have the cash, why shouldn't you be able to buy them?

My personal opinion is that I don't understand that argument, and I've been hearing it more and more.

* Pictures fat guys in Camo going to Wal Mart to buy landmines to protect their " freedom " *
 
Last edited:

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,525
8,142
Colorado
The 2nd amendment isn't an absolute any more than the 1st amendment of freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. That said, it is the nature of the restrictions on each of these things that reasonable people disagree about.

Obviously, the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to weapons of mass destruction like an ICBM or nuclear weapons. Nor should it apply to anything else you have listed. Those that think otherwise are idiots.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
Free market baby, why the hell not. I'm a consumer therefore I should be able to buy anything and everything. This is America is it not? ;)
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Free market baby, why the hell not. I'm a consumer therefore I should be able to buy anything and everything. This is America is it not? ;)
Obviously not.

If I can't have my A-10 Thunderbolt, where is the freedom? /sarcasm
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
Right now, it's Obama's America. Which ain't anything like real America. I mean hell, we've got...like...healthcare now.
I'd debate the last part, but your right, the country became a commie-stalinist-nanny-surveillance-muslim state the exact second he was sworn in :p
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
But yeah, the moment Obama got sworn in, I went out and bought a copy of Aladdin as a study guide for our future Muslim state.
You!:mad:

Now I need to get another cup of coffee because half of it is now on my monitor :p
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
If the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, which it clearly does, then I don't see a problem with any of that. Why not, this country is going to hell in a hand basket faster and faster these days, soon enough things like mortars and vehicle mounted machine guns might be necessary to protect my family.

And if you take anyone who says this type of thing seriously, then you're clearly very easily trolled.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
If the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, which it clearly does, then I don't see a problem with any of that. Why not, this country is going to hell in a hand basket faster and faster these days, soon enough things like mortars and vehicle mounted machine guns might be necessary to protect my family.

And if you take anyone who says this type of thing seriously, then you're clearly very easily trolled.
Protect them from...what? The Freedom Hating Socialist kenya Muzzies :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

/s
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Let's again look at the Second Amendment ...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The security of the state—at least during times of peace—was to be the responsibility of the militia and not a standing army. So the militia needed to be armed adequately to meet the needs of defending the state. In those days that meant swords, knives, guns, cannon, and ships and I'm under the assumption that all of those types of arms could be owned by an individual.

If today the militia were still the main method of defending the nation then I would likewise assume that the weapons necessary to fight a war would be owned by the individuals responsible for that defense.

However, since we don't adhere to the Second Amendment or the defense of the nation as intended by our Founders, it's really a moot point.
 

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,914
1,596
New England, USA
I have several small nuclear weapons. I keep them in a nuclear weapon safe, so it is safe from children, and I only use them for target shooting and sport.

Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people...they are a tool that depends on the responsibility of the owner.

And I am a perfectly responsible owner.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,356
4,332
Gourd City
I have several small nuclear weapons. I keep them in a nuclear weapon safe, so it is safe from children, and I only use them for target shooting and sport.

Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people...they are a tool that depends on the responsibility or the owner.

And I am a perfectly responsible owner.

:rolleyes:
But not this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

This is why we can't have nice nuclear things.
 

iJohnHenry

macrumors P6
Mar 22, 2008
16,505
15
On tenterhooks
Now if a military junta should try to take over the country you are well prepared. *coughSevenDaysInMaycough*

Welcome to a well regulated militia. :cool:
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Yeah sure, why not. What could happen other than someone getting it and 2 seconds later being thrown in jail and fined into poverty for violating thousands of EPA regs related to radioactive material.

Forget importing them from the Ukraine or other former Soviet republic. That would certainly violate ITAR and lord knows what other environmental regs.

Also, where are they going to get the nukes? The Air Force? Last I checked there is no commercial outlet for selling nukes. Good luck getting a license to commercially produce nuclear weapons. Where are they going to get the nuclear material for production...

In summary, this red herring has nowhere to go.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
Let's again look at the Second Amendment ...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The security of the state—at least during times of peace—was to be the responsibility of the militia and not a standing army. So the militia needed to be armed adequately to meet the needs of defending the state. In those days that meant swords, knives, guns, cannon, and ships and I'm under the assumption that all of those types of arms could be owned by an individual.
Yep, and on this note, the 2nd amendment became obsolete and should have been repealed when the National Guard was created in 1933.
 

stroked

Suspended
May 3, 2010
555
321
Yep, and on this note, the 2nd amendment became obsolete and should have been repealed when the National Guard was created in 1933.
Every new armed branch of the government, is one more reason to keep the second amendment.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Yeah sure, why not. What could happen other than someone getting it and 2 seconds later being thrown in jail and fined into poverty for violating thousands of EPA regs related to radioactive material.

Forget importing them from the Ukraine or other former Soviet republic. That would certainly violate ITAR and lord knows what other environmental regs.

Also, where are they going to get the nukes? The Air Force? Last I checked there is no commercial outlet for selling nukes. Good luck getting a license to commercially produce nuclear weapons. Where are they going to get the nuclear material for production...

In summary, this red herring has nowhere to go.
Lets just assume, that commercially available weapons would be possible at Billy Bingo Bobs gun store. Should people be allowed to own them?

You CAN buy tanks and APCs, and jets. And it's all that not that hard to bring them back up to combat status ( Hell, with most tanks, you just gotta get a firing pin )

----------

Every new armed branch of the government, is one more reason to keep the second amendment.
I'm not sure we'll ever see armed revolt. The only people considerding it are backwoods folks in compounds, which is quickly taken care of by a cruise missile.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
Every new armed branch of the government, is one more reason to keep the second amendment.
Have fun with your pea shooters against a drone missile. :roll eyes:


Seriously, I don't understand how people seem to think having a handgun, a rifle, or hell even if you were to have a fully automatic assault rifle, how in the hell would that protect you from any weapons developed after the 60's?

Outdated thinking through and through.