Why aren't grenades legal, and mass produced for U.S. citizens to collect and use?

[NumberSix]

Who's got the right to tell us what armaments are okay for personal use and what armaments aren't?

Surely no one conservative thinks the government should be allowed to impose rules on this stuff, when the constitution clearly states we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

Right, and in 18th century American English, "arms" quite clearly is defined as meaning "firearms" aka, guns.

[CavaliersFTW]

Right, and in 18th century American English, "arms" quite clearly is defined as meaning "firearms" aka, guns.

Arms has always meant weapons.

Not strictly guns.

Nice try.

[NumberSix]

Arms has always meant weapons.

Not strictly guns.

Nice try.

That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.

[CavaliersFTW]

That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.

Why over the years have certain weapons that were once considered acceptable been motioned to be considered unacceptable (for example, grenades). And why haven't weapons like bombs and heavy artillery ever been considered legal arms in the hands of citizens?

Do you think the element of danger, or individual killing power has anything to do with it?

If so, why shouldn't guns which are now far more advanced and lethal than they ever were, say, in the colonial days when our armament amendment rights were initially granted to us, be fair game for re-evaluation like every other dangerous weapon? What line is there that is drawn for guns why are guns off limits for re-evaluation of legality in the eyes of so many citizens?

If arms are to be legal, than arms should be legal. Right? What's with all this grey area and regulations and exceptions. Sounds pretty liberal doesn't it? Is liberal okay? Are you okay with how heavily regulated everything is? Should the ever changing technology of things continue to be regulated and all be viable for evaluation and reevaluation as time goes by for the safety of citizens or w/e?

[TheMan]

That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.

Wait a minute. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, the race to create more nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR was always referred as the US/Soviet Union "arms race". I don't think they were just referring to hand guns and rifles

[NumberSix]

Why over the years have certain weapons that were once considered acceptable been motioned to be considered unacceptable (for example, grenades). And why haven't weapons like bombs and heavy artillery ever been considered legal arms in the hands of citizens?

Do you think the element of danger, or individual killing power has anything to do with it?

If so, why shouldn't guns which are now far more advanced and lethal than they ever were, say, in the colonial days when our armament amendment rights were initially granted to us, be fair game for re-evaluation like every other dangerous weapon? What line is there that is drawn for guns why are guns off limits for re-evaluation of legality in the eyes of so many citizens?

If arms are to be legal, than arms should be legal. Right? What's with all this grey area and regulations and exceptions. Sounds pretty liberal doesn't it?

The problem is that you have no knowledge of case law. The Supreme Court has been very clear that the purpose of the second amendment with regard to an individual right to bear arms is mainly for the natural right of self defense. Offensive weapons like nukes or fighter jets does not fall into that category. This is not difficult to understand.

As I've previously explained to you, the constitution doesn't only say what it says. It says what it has subsequently been defined as saying. If you don't know what it has been defined as saying, you can't have a proper discussion on it.

[NumberSix]

Wait a minute. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, the race to create more nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR was always referred as the US/Soviet Union "arms race". I don't think they were just referring to hand guns and rifles

And your point is what?

[9erempiree]

You can have grenades people.

[CavaliersFTW]

The problem is that you have no knowledge of case law. The Supreme Court has been very clear that the purpose of the second amendment with regard to an individual right to bear arms is mainly for the natural right of self defense. Offensive weapons like nukes or fighter jets does not fall into that category. This is not difficult to understand.

So that law is about self defense is it? Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle? Yet placing an IED on your property to keep off trespassers in a defensive effort probably wouldn't fly in court. Hm.

[9erempiree]

Just use some logic people, how long was the constitution written? With that said we very well know what they mean by arms.

And we're suppose to be the irrational ones?

Typical lib argument, except they are using their lib views for the 2nd amendment by twisting it. They do that shit with everything.

Imagine if they were pro 2nd amendment. Everyone will be walking around with bazookas.

[9erempiree]

This thread is a perfect example of......

What if Liberals were Pro-2nd Amendment?

Knowing what we know about their beliefs and views, it is safe to say 'if you give them rifles and guns, they will want bazookas and nukes.'

They will use the 2nd amendment and twist it to gain a benefit.

Tell me who's the rational one when it comes to owning 'arms'?

[NumberSix]

Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle?

A gun like a knife, a bat or pepper spray can be used as either an offensive or defensive weapon. You can't make a claim that you want to have chemical weapons for self defense. This is a weapon that can only be used by an aggressor. It doesn't have any defensive purpose. No individual can make a reasonable claim of needing a nuke for self defense purposes.

[CavaliersFTW]

A gun like a knife, a bat or pepper spray can be used as either an offensive or defensive weapon. You can't make a claim that you want to have chemical weapons for self defense. This is a weapon that can only be used by an aggressor. It doesn't have any defensive purpose. No individual can make a reasonable claim of needing a nuke for self defense purposes.

Landmines. IED's. ETC

[NumberSix]

So that law is about self defense is it? Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle? Yet placing an IED on your property to keep off trespassers in a defensive effort probably wouldn't fly in court. Hm.

Again, your lack of case law comes in. Do you really think you're the first person to think of this? That this hasn't already been subject to judicial scrutiny?

Planting explosives traps are not defensive. They have no way of discerning between aggressors and non-aggressors. They can't tell the difference between a burglar or the mail man. You can't have people on public streets being blown up because a squirrel or a cat stepped on a land mine on your lawn.

Weapons that kill people indiscriminately like bombs can not be claimed as self defense weapons.

[9erempiree]

Guns and rifles are defensive weapons.

That is why wars are started with bombs, missiles and explosives.

No soldier would want to use their guns because that means they are in the defensive.

I think people really need to get familiarized with what weapons do. Nobody starts a war with a gun.