1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

Question Of The Month (July 2021) (2A Firearms)

Discussion in 'Question of the Month' started by carbinemike, Jul 2, 2021.

  1. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    6,068
    "I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn't buy a cannon,"...Joe Biden. We know what Sleepy Joe thinks. What range of weapons do you feel fall under the protection of the 2A?
    meanstreak and fellmann like this.
  2. BoBo522

    BoBo522 .410

    Messages:
    38
    All of them. Like the 2nd Amendment says: “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.” There are no restrictions on types, implicit or otherwise. I do not believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever.
    meanstreak and fellmann like this.
  3. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    9,443
    I think this is kind of a moot point since what is important to us is not what protection the Second Amendment offers, but what officials in our society will protect/destroy the second amendment?

    But right off the top of my head I will say every weapon that I personally own is protected by the Second Amendment.

    If I decide to buy another one, I will certainly buy one that I feel is protected by the second amendment.

    For now, I feel more or less covered without owning an F-15.
    meanstreak and fellmann like this.
  4. Ernst

    Ernst .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    1,075
    Think we should remember the words of George Washington.

    ZtS2dGpc.png
  5. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    6,068
    I was thinking more along the line of what you think falls under the 2A term "arms" for protection from government interference. Is a bazooka protected? Flamethrower? Canon? Full auto M4? Grenade launcher? Etc.

    I do like the George Washington quote the @Ernst posted above.
    meanstreak, CaddmannQ and fellmann like this.
  6. fellmann

    fellmann Esoteric Supporter Premier Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    I like that quote :)

    My interpretation is all small arms.. pistols and rifles.. falls under the 2A term "arms". Capacity is irrelevant...

    Note: its my"interpretation" of the 2nd A
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2021
    meanstreak and CaddmannQ like this.
  7. Bobster

    Bobster .30-06 Supporter

    Messages:
    2,614
    As a Libertarian, I don't believe as a "free" society we should even "need" any of the Amendments. Do unto others sort of thing. If you want to own a cannon that is fine with me, just don't point it at my house... ;) But in all seriousness, if the NFA34, GCA68 and FOP86 et al went away, I wouldn't have ANY problem with it... :D
    meanstreak and CaddmannQ like this.
  8. Ernst

    Ernst .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    1,075
    Recommend everyone read this article, "What Good is a Handgun Against an Army."

    It's far to long to post in its entirety but here's one paragraph.

    They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.


    https://myplace.frontier.com/~maripaul/handgun_against_an_army.htm

    Regards
    meanstreak and CaddmannQ like this.
  9. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06

    Messages:
    2,402
    I doesn't much matter what I think. The Supreme Court of the United States has made those decisions which will regulate our behavior in accordance to their interpretation of the Constitution.

    Read some of the text of the Heller decision from one of the most important recent [2008] SCOTUS decisions to see what their opinion is. I always wince a little bit when they quote or affirm Miller because that case was tried with out any presentation from the Miller side. [I think Miller, the man, had already died.]

    Text from DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    See the text of the complete decision and dissenting opinions of Heller at:
    LINK -> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    meanstreak likes this.
  10. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    6,068
    @Scoop , I was looking for what your opinion is. I clarified the original question with: "I was thinking more along the line of what you think". I understand the reality of SCOTUS having Constitutional authority to make a ruling on what the 2A covers us owning but that isn't what this month's question is about.
    CaddmannQ likes this.
  11. meanstreak

    meanstreak .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    4,305
    Are the courts not also part of the government ? When they lose their independence and become political they have become part of the problem as opposed to being the answer. They are supposed to interpret, not legislate.

    Therefore, it seems to me if or when that would happen then we have tyranny for sure.
    Pawpaw, John A. and CaddmannQ like this.
  12. John A.

    John A. Unconstitutional laws are not laws. Staff Member Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    15,983
    All of them, and including ammunition, powder, bullets, edged weapons, tanks, rockets, et.al

    Flamethrowers and cannons are perfectly legal now. You can order one direct to your door, no background check necessary.

    The gov gets a little weird about locked breech cannons, but traditional BP cannons and mortars are still perfectly legal now as they have always been.
    CaddmannQ and meanstreak like this.
  13. meanstreak

    meanstreak .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    4,305
    The founding fathers, in my opinion, wrote the 2nd with the war with British in mind. They absolutely wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves and the country against enemies. If one is to effectively fight an invading army one needs comparable weapons.

    As someone here wrote a while back, Paul Revere did not ride to warn that the deer were coming.
    CaddmannQ likes this.
  14. Ernst

    Ernst .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    1,075
  15. meanstreak

    meanstreak .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    4,305
    Whoa there Ernst, that's way too much common sense.
    CaddmannQ likes this.
  16. Ernst

    Ernst .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    1,075
  17. MikeD

    MikeD I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    12,443
    I think at the beginnings of our country the people were allowed to own anything they could afford. The country was new, and people were excited about their freedom. I doubt there was much concern of a revolt as we had just freed ourselves from our English masters.

    We have now lost that 'new car smell' and those in power fear the people more.

    Personally i feel that private citizens should be able to own pretty much whatever they want or can afford. I guess i may draw the line at WMD's. Devices that can take out a city block, entire city etc in a single blow should probably be restricted, but I can't say I am dead set on that. Much of what the government has at its disposal should not even exist in the world.

    The door to freedom swings both ways.

    Being free does not mean being safe. In fact I believe those two things are mutually exclusive.
    meanstreak, CaddmannQ and Ernst like this.
  18. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    9,443
    They absolutely are exclusive.

    There is no easy freedom. Also there is no social progress without hard work.

    People who think that you can protest your way to progress, or someone else will buy it for you, are idiots, and they will get what idiots get.
    meanstreak likes this.
  19. meanstreak

    meanstreak .30-06 Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    4,305
    Except, now we have a government that uses those very people to their advantage. The government condones the protests and are raising taxes to buy even more for those that don't/won't work. At the same time promoting racial divide and hatred every day.
    CaddmannQ likes this.
  20. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    9,443
    There’s going to be a lot of people looking for work when the administration turns over again, (and they find their free money has dried up.) . . . or looking to commit a crime, so beware.
    meanstreak likes this.

Share This Page