Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rand Paul's Grasp of the Constitution and Its Amendments


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,711 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 June 2017 - 09:43 AM

A tank would be nice if you can find one.  The expense and learning curve would be considerable.  Actually where I live it would be legal.  Getting the tax stamp, (license) for the cannon would be difficult, lengthy and expensive.  The machine guns would be doable but also expensive.  The individual armor piercing sabot rounds would be easy to legally have.  The HEAT rounds would take special licensing but doable if you are rich and have lawyers and such.  To possess the powder charges would require a special state and federal license. Also understand owning a nice newer tank from whomever country would take a maintenance crew to keep it running.  Expensive to operate.
 
I do not think you are serious about the nuke.  We will leave it at that.  All Oregon USA State Laws, USA Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply.  The legalities of lots of Constitutional stuff probably, (certainly) is poorly understood by most here.  Different environments.  Different life styles.  Different expectations of government.  The normal human reaction to different views is usually a negative one.  It rocks our sense of comfort.  Critical self examination is always difficult.  We all here understand this.  My point of view may not be shared by others.  Also understand other points of view are not shared my myself.  But there should always be room for common courtesy and respect.


I am serious about the nuke. Why can't I have one?
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#42 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,156 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:17 PM

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
 
Seems to me it's saying you can over throw it should it become tyrannical.
 
And I know, somebody is going to argue that it doesn't explicitly say "Over throw" but instead "Abolish."
I'll comment on this.
 
If the government is tyrannical, do you really think it would just step aside while you told them they were no longer in charge?
I doubt it.
So fighting would go down.
And if the people had no weapons, it diminishes their ability to do this at any time.
 
While I'm not saying that our current government is tyrannical(stupid and racist, yes, but not yet a dictator), it could one day become tyrannical.
As with all governments.
 
At that time, if we no longer have guns because our right to own them was taken away(another thing I doubt will happen), it'd be much harder to over throw the government.
 
 
 
And I know what you're saying.
"The American people could never defeat the military!"
 
But clocking out at the idea of 35%(there was a study that came up with this number) of 330,000,000 people owning guns, that's 115,000,000 people with guns.
 
That's a hard number of people to suppress.
 
Additionally, other countries might join in too.
All depends.
 
 
But regardless, people owning guns gives the people power against their government.
 
 

In that time, the State's were not all one government.

They were all separate, under the rule of the union.

 

I am serious about the nuke. Why can't I have one?

Because the second amendment gave us the right to bear arms.

Not to carry around an inter continental ballistic missile.


I am serious about the nuke. Why can't I have one?

Wait.

I looked it up.

 

You can own a nuke legally inside the united states.

 

You just have to pass all the safety standards, and there's nobody that's going to give you an instruction manual to build it.

 

 

It'd also amount to hundreds of billions of dollars to make the storage area, getting the material, development, etc.

On top of that, it'd also add on another few hundred billion to be able to launch it any where.

 

Note, the richest man on earth has $79.2 billion dollars.

The united states spent $80 billion on just the PLANES to carry nukes.

 

 

With enough money, you can own just about any weapon.


Edited by Raider5678, 19 June 2017 - 12:18 PM.

  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#43 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,711 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:37 PM

Wait.
I looked it up.
 
You can own a nuke legally inside the united states.


You could perhaps share the citation?
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#44 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,156 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:53 PM

You could perhaps share the citation?

Well.

It's a law that doesn't exist.

And most of the citations are from things like forums and such where nobody can find the law prohibiting it.

But here's a few of the forums.

 

https://www.quora.co...nuclear-weapons

https://www.reddit.c...ericans_to_own/

http://boards.straig...ad.php?t=260139

 

 

Somebody on there says it's illegal to own radioactive materials.

That's not true.

There's severe regulation, but not illegal if you have the proper safety precautions.

 

 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The NRC is the Federal agency responsible protecting the health and safety of the public and the environment by licensing and regulating the civilian uses of the following radioactive materials:

The NRC regulates the use of these radioactive materials through Title 10, Part 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," which spells out the agency's requirements for the following aspects of radiation protection:

  • Dose limits for radiation workers and members of the public
  • Exposure limits for individual radionuclides
  • Monitoring and labeling radioactive materials
  • Posting signs in and around radiation areas
  • Reporting the theft or loss of radioactive material
  • Penalties for not complying with NRC regulations

Of more than 20,000 active source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials licenses in place in the United States, about a quarter are administered by the NRC, while the rest are administered by 37 Agreement States.


Edited by Raider5678, 19 June 2017 - 01:05 PM.

  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#45 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,711 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 June 2017 - 01:16 PM

Just found this in wikipedia, about the adoption of the Bill of Rights

https://en.wikipedia...es_Constitution

 

"A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated."

 

 

Anyway, US v Miller restricts the 2nd Amendment to "ordinary military equipment"


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#46 HB of CJ

HB of CJ

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 42 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 08:58 PM

US vs Miller was about a shotgun.  Quite a reach to suggest it deals with all ordinary military equipment.  Can you provide a link outlining your statement tied to specific court language regarding this ruling? 

 

Respectfully.


  • 0

#47 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,375 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted Yesterday, 01:11 AM

US vs Miller was about a shotgun.  Quite a reach to suggest it deals with all ordinary military equipment.  Can you provide a link outlining your statement tied to specific court language regarding this ruling? 

 

Respectfully.

 

 

United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short - barrelled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

https://en.wikipedia...tates_v._Miller    

My bold


Edited by StringJunky, Yesterday, 01:12 AM.

  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#48 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,711 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted Yesterday, 09:50 AM

US vs Miller was about a shotgun.  Quite a reach to suggest it deals with all ordinary military equipment.  Can you provide a link outlining your statement tied to specific court language regarding this ruling? 

 

Respectfully.

 

 

The quotation marks weren't accidental

https://www.law.corn...t/text/307/174#

 

It's also of note that the decision was based, as it should be, on the Constitution as a whole, and not just on the second amendment. As ydoaPs noted, there are several mentions of the militia elsewhere in the Constitution. That's the reason for interpreting the amendment in terms of militia. The government has (or had) a vested interest in people having the right. You could argue that it's not necessary anymore.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users