What "arms" do we have the right to bear?

[MuzzleFlash]

Every time I hear someone talking about gun control they often reference nuclear weapons or missiles to validate their point, as if possession and use of these weapons would be as rampant as cheap pistols. I'm having trouble finding accurate statistics but I've heard that 50 caliber rifles, one of those awfully overpowered beasts that us civilians don't need and shouldn't have access to, have been responsible for 0-6 deaths in the US total. They're expensive, you have to go through a few more hoops to get them, they're heavy, loud, and bulky. Yet, weapons like these are most feared.

So let's entertain this for a moment, we're allowed access to whatever we please. Can anybody on this forum, anyone we know, or any criminal afford a missile and the required apparatus to move and fire it, let alone a nuke? Seems to me the only people who could manage to have such things would be CEOs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's already legal, at least in some states, to purchase cannons and Howitzers is it not? I'm aware that it's legal to purchase machine guns with the proper ATF paperwork, and it seems to be legal to collect at least decommissioned tanks. A tank is a weapon in and of itself, gun in tact or not.

These AWB's do nothing but confuse me because they do nothing to change the capabilities of the rifles, they only ban or inflate the prices of the accessories. It's like instating a vehicle ban that outlaws bug shields and decals, why even bother?

Maybe I'm trying to find logic where there is none. I just wish I could hear one of these interviewers respond with "Well, even if such weapons were legalized who could afford them?" or to be even more bold "We don't possess firearms strictly for hunting or home defense, we have the right to firearms equivalent to that of law enforcement to ensure our freedom against oppression and tyranny and for that, yes, and assault weapon would be useful."
The majority of anti-gun rhetoric seems to revolve around what we need for hunting and home defense. I wasn't aware hunting had anything at all to do with why the right was given. Maybe that's what the "bear" part was referring to.

Anyway, back to my main question. What are your realistic thoughts on having access to missiles and other such "arms?" Is that infringement? If not, then why not? Where do you think the line between acceptable arms and restricted ones should be and for what reasons?

[General Geoff]

They fail to realize that it IS perfectly legal to own a surface to air missile, or an air-to-air missile, even a complete fighter jet with fully functioning loadout of missiles and cannon, as long as the cannon was grandfathered in before 1986, and all the missiles and bombs have $200 DD tax stamps.


So it's not a hypothetical. You are perfectly legal to own such weapons, as long as you can find a legitimate seller, and as long as you register them per NFA regulations.


I'm not even sure that there's actually any LAW against owning a nuclear weapon. It might be covered under some "weapons of mass destruction" statute, but that's more likely to be a state law, than a federal law.

[stephpd]

Well my understanding of the Miller case is that we are (should be) allowed to possess all small arms that are in use by the military.The case was on the owning of a sawed off shotgun. Those were in use by the military at the time. But since the plaintiff died before the court hearing his lawyer didn't show up either.

But we find it difficult to even acquire these items.

Do I think we have the right to own other small arms like grenade and rocket launchers? yes. But my opinion means little.

Should we be able to purchase much larger arms? Yes. If it weren't for the private ownership of cannons the Revolutionary War might have gone worse for us.

Surface to air missiles or nukes, maybe not.

[General Geoff]

Surface to air missiles would be imperative in any kind of rebellion against tyranny in modern times. Air superiourity is a HUGE deal in modern warfare.

[Coops]

Its obvious that the Founding Fathers had no anticipation that weaponry would evolve to the extent that a single soldier could level an entire town. Their intent was to prevent citizenry as a whole from being subjugated by an equally armed government. To adhere to the letter of the constitution, private citizens should be able to "bear" any weapon conceivable.
Considering that a fully armed nuclear submarine is beyond the buying power of anyone but two or three private citizens in the US I don't think laws are required to regulate their sale. Anyone who could buy one has more to lose than gain by using it against the government.

In the case of surface to air missiles for example, what would be the objective of the government bombing your house? If they kill off all the taxpayers, then the government collapses.

I think a balance is struck with affordable personal defense weapons. The taxman cannot come to the door with thugs at his back and expect you to pay an oppressive tax if you are armed against a small group. A gun is an equalizer. If the government is sending troops door to door to kill people then its all out war and civilization is over anyway. Having a tank at your disposal will not shift the odds in your favor.

Nuclear weapons is a whole nother question. I don't trust anybody with a nuke. I am actually amazed that nobody has used one to kill somebody since 1945. The collateral damage from a nuke is unacceptable. The government that would use it on its own people does not deserve to continue so a citizen has no need for the equal destructive power a nuke would give him.

[Guns4Fun]

My take on this is that us commoners / citizens should be able to own all small arms that the military uses / used. This should include, without restriction, full auto / select fire, grenades, rocket / grenade launchers, shoulder fired surface to are missiles, etc. Pretty much any arms that can be carried by a soldier in the field. I do not feel that would include tanks, armed fighter jets, nukes, etc. The idea was that all militia members should have small arms and the “Army” would provide things like cannons and such (bigger items not normally carried by a foot soldier).

As to what the actual AWB did---nothing, it was just a piece of feel good legislation. Since everything was grandfathered and nothing really important changed on the guns layout. But it made the anti’s and sheep feel safer.

[Guns4Fun]

Its obvious that the Founding Fathers had no anticipation that weaponry would evolve to the extent that a single soldier could level an entire town. Their intent was to prevent citizenry as a whole from being subjugated by an equally armed government. To adhere to the letter of the constitution, private citizens should be able to "bear" any weapon conceivable.
Considering that a fully armed nuclear submarine is beyond the buying power of anyone but two or three private citizens in the US I don't think laws are required to regulate their sale. Anyone who could buy one has more to lose than gain by using it against the government.

In the case of surface to air missiles for example, what would be the objective of the government bombing your house? If they kill off all the taxpayers, then the government collapses.

I think a balance is struck with affordable personal defense weapons. The taxman cannot come to the door with thugs at his back and expect you to pay an oppressive tax if you are armed against a small group. A gun is an equalizer. If the government is sending troops door to door to kill people then its all out war and civilization is over anyway. Having a tank at your disposal will not shift the odds in your favor.

Nuclear weapons is a whole nother question. I don't trust anybody with a nuke. I am actually amazed that nobody has used one to kill somebody since 1945. The collateral damage from a nuke is unacceptable. The government that would use it on its own people does not deserve to continue so a citizen has no need for the equal destructive power a nuke would give him.

I agree, the founding fathers could not have known weaponry would advance to the state it has today. However, I think they made it very clear that they intended for the citizens to have the ability to protect the country and overthrow an out of control government by using small arms.

The second part in red-----I think that was the whole idea---to give the citizens the ability to make an out of control government "fail to exist and collapse" and to be restored to the original intent of the constitution.

I think the founding fathers (if they came back today) would be shocked at just how far the citizens have let government "grow in power". If they were alive, they would have stood up to government a long time ago. Hell, they waged war for much lower taxes back then than we have today. Plus, all the career politicians of today---they never intended for that. Hell, back then most politicians were just regular people that took time from their farms to run things--then went back to tending their homesteads. Now days, they are all lawyers and make full time careers out of politics.

[Siobhra]

How about going the other way? If not guns then what arms do we have the right to bear?
Bow and arrow?
Swords?
Daggers?
Spears?
Just how small or benign does it have to be to be an 'arm' that we can carry?

I asked an anti that and he could not give me an answer.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

http://www.tubearoo.com/articles/243...Bear_Arms.html

[Guns4Fun]

How about going the other way? If not guns then what arms do we have the right to bear?
Bow and arrow?
Swords?
Daggers?
Spears?
Just how small or benign does it have to be to be an 'arm' that we can carry?

I asked an anti that and he could not give me an answer.

Ha Ha, maybe they meant the two arms we have hanging off our shoulders and we could wear sleeveless shirts---you know, bearing those arms.