The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic

[ex-khobar Andy]

Go for it. They're expensive, impractical, and probably more dangerous to you than anyone else, but sure. Be aware, you will need a CDL with haz-mat endorsement and an appropriately-marked and permitted vehicle (Explosives 1.2, I think) to transport it.

I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.

You mean I am not free to drive my tank around (is that brandishing?) just because I don't have a CDL let alone a haz-mat endorsement? That sounds suspiciously like infringing to me. I won't have it . . .

[Burning Petard]

There are many local regulations on driving steel tracked or steel wheeled vehicles on public roads. Best you keep it to the grassy lawns.

snailgate.

[Jarlaxle]

You mean I am not free to drive my tank around (is that brandishing?) just because I don't have a CDL let alone a haz-mat endorsement? That sounds suspiciously like infringing to me. I won't have it . . .

Not even a good deflection.

[Jarlaxle]

Hardly surprising. You endorse the removal of all restrictions on "arms" other than nuclear, chemical and something else (can't be bothered to scroll down). But you appear to accept that restrictions on the ownership of tank guns and bazookas is reasonable.

I have no idea where you got that idea. Poor reading comprehension, perhaps?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hardly surprising. You endorse the removal of all restrictions on "arms" other than nuclear, chemical and something else (can't be bothered to scroll down). But you appear to accept that restrictions on the ownership of tank guns and bazookas is reasonable.

I have no idea where you got that idea. Poor reading comprehension, perhaps?

Well done in deliberately omitting the alternative interpretation! Selective reading, perhaps? In this thread you appear to occupy one of two positions:

EITHER you endorse restrictions as above OR you wish to be free to purchase and use fully operational tanks, bazookas and presumably any form of "arms" that you do not define as nuclear, chemical or the other thing.

Or you have another position entirely which remains unexplained

[Jarlaxle]

Well done in deliberately omitting the alternative interpretation! Selective reading, perhaps? In this thread you appear to occupy one of two positions:

EITHER you endorse restrictions as above OR you wish to be free to purchase and use fully operational tanks, bazookas and presumably any form of "arms" that you do not define as nuclear, chemical or the other thing.

Or you have another position entirely which remains unexplained

Go ahead and purchase it. But, just like if I purchase 20,000 rounds of ammunition (explosives 1.4, IIRC), or 500 gallons of gasoline (placard 1203, flammable liquid), or tanks of gas (oxygen, flammable gas) for my torch, transporting it on public roads is subject to restrictions transporting hazardous material.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well done in deliberately omitting the alternative interpretation! Selective reading, perhaps? In this thread you appear to occupy one of two positions:

EITHER you endorse restrictions as above OR you wish to be free to purchase and use fully operational tanks, bazookas and presumably any form of "arms" that you do not define as nuclear, chemical or the other thing.

Or you have another position entirely which remains unexplained

Go ahead and purchase it. But, just like if I purchase 20,000 rounds of ammunition (explosives 1.4, IIRC), or 500 gallons of gasoline (placard 1203, flammable liquid), or tanks of gas (oxygen, flammable gas) for my torch, transporting it on public roads is subject to restrictions transporting hazardous material.

Still an evasion. Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment should be amended to permit the unrestricted purchase and use of fully weaponized tanks, aircraft, flame throwers, grenade launchers, bazookas, and other "arms" by nice people like you and me?

If not, why not?

[Jarlaxle]

Sure, go for it.

[Econoline]

I would like something like this for a start:

No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.

Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.

Get serious. I would guess that the number of people who would agree with your proposal is a tiny fraction of the number of people who would agree with a proposal to just completely repeal the Second Amendment...which itself is probably a small (though probably not "tiny") fraction of the total U.S. population. In other words, it's a pointless reductio ad absurdum.

OTOH, I'd be willing to bet that there's a *LARGE* majority of Americans who'd agree that the wording in the Second Amendment as written is archaic, unclear, arguable, and subject to interpretation. Maybe even large enough to pass another amendment simply to clarify the meaning of the existing amendment.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I agree. I would like something like this for a start:

No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.

Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.

Let me observe that bear spray and mace - which are sold for personal protection to those who don't want firearms - are chemical weapons. And coyote urine which is sold as a deer (and other vermin) deterrent is undoubtedly a biological weapon.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm curious Jarl: you seem to agree that gun rights for those convicted of 'high crimes,' whatever they are, can be infringed.

There's an AP story here about the idiot who killed 4 people at a Tennessee Waffle House in 2018. Apparently in 2016 the police in Illinois, where he lives, took his guns away because he believed that Taylor Swift was stalking him (!!) and gave the weapons to his father for safekeeping. And apparently Dad gave them back to his son, who promptly used them to kill the four people in Nashville. Son will spend the rest of his life locked up.

Dad gets 18 months. Apart from the seeming unwise choice of having Dad take care the weapons his son had accumulated, does that seem like a fair punishment?

[Jarlaxle]

I'm curious Jarl: you seem to agree that gun rights for those convicted of 'high crimes,' whatever they are, can be infringed.

There's an AP story here about the idiot who killed 4 people at a Tennessee Waffle House in 2018. Apparently in 2016 the police in Illinois, where he lives, took his guns away because he believed that Taylor Swift was stalking him (!!) and gave the weapons to his father for safekeeping. And apparently Dad gave them back to his son, who promptly used them to kill the four people in Nashville. Son will spend the rest of his life locked up.

Dad gets 18 months. Apart from the seeming unwise choice of having Dad take care the weapons his son had accumulated, does that seem like a fair punishment?

I don't know enough details about the case to answer, but probably not.

High crimes: felonies. Convicted criminals can have rights removed, that's nothing new.