.

1 could argue that not being able to own rocket launchers and nukes goes against the second amendment because it says "arms".   Where do you draw the line?

More moronic statements by the “Village Idiot”. 

1 could argue that not being able to own rocket launchers and nukes goes against the second amendment because it says "arms".   Where do you draw the line?

There's a term you seem to not have in your vocabulary (go figure!  ):  conventional.  Arms you can own are conventional weapons.  Nukes are unconventional weapons, which is normally used interchangeably with Weapons of Mass Destruction.  These type weapons, due to their ability to kill indiscriminately over a wide area, are not available to civilians.

Grenade Launchers are LEGAL for civilians to own, as are:
Flame throwers
Chain Whips
Miniguns
One-handed Flail
Umbrella Sword
Katana
Crossbow
Sap Cap
Canons (since they are not defined as "firearms," they are not subject to the NFA)
and, yes, Rocket Launchers.

You CAN own a rocket launcher legally as long as you apply for an NFA permit for a "destructive device" before you take possession, get approved, pay your $200 tax, and if they are legal to possess in your state.  Depending on classification, each rocket for the launcher may also require individual tax payments and approval to possess as "destructive devices".

Looks like your assumption that rocket launchers can't be owned by civilians is just plain wrong!  Or should I say, "stupid?!"

There's a term you seem to not have in your vocabulary (go figure!  ):  conventional.  Arms you can own are conventional weapons.  Nukes are unconventional weapons, which is normally used interchangeably with Weapons of Mass Destruction.  These type weapons, due to their ability to kill indiscriminately over a wide area, are not available to civilians.

Grenade Launchers are LEGAL for civilians to own, as are:
Flame throwers
Chain Whips
Miniguns
One-handed Flail
Umbrella Sword
Katana
Crossbow
Sap Cap
Canons (since they are not defined as "firearms," they are not subject to the NFA)
and, yes, Rocket Launchers.

You CAN own a rocket launcher legally as long as you apply for an NFA permit for a "destructive device" before you take possession, get approved, pay your $200 tax, and if they are legal to possess in your state.  Depending on classification, each rocket for the launcher may also require individual tax payments and approval to possess as "destructive devices".

Looks like your assumption that rocket launchers can't be owned by civilians is just plain wrong!  Or should I say, "stupid?!"

Don't forget to add in anti tank type cannons.  Seen some on that Discovery show Sons of Guns from private owners.

Don't forget to add in anti tank type cannons.  Seen some on that Discovery show Sons of Guns from private owners.

For that matter, you can also own a tank!  Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger!

There's a term you seem to not have in your vocabulary (go figure!  ):  conventional.  Arms you can own are conventional weapons.  Nukes are unconventional weapons, which is normally used interchangeably with Weapons of Mass Destruction.  These type weapons, due to their ability to kill indiscriminately over a wide area, are not available to civilians.

Grenade Launchers are LEGAL for civilians to own, as are:
Flame throwers
Chain Whips
Miniguns
One-handed Flail
Umbrella Sword
Katana
Crossbow
Sap Cap
Canons (since they are not defined as "firearms," they are not subject to the NFA)
and, yes, Rocket Launchers.

You CAN own a rocket launcher legally as long as you apply for an NFA permit for a "destructive device" before you take possession, get approved, pay your $200 tax, and if they are legal to possess in your state.  Depending on classification, each rocket for the launcher may also require individual tax payments and approval to possess as "destructive devices".

Looks like your assumption that rocket launchers can't be owned by civilians is just plain wrong!  Or should I say, "stupid?!"

Can't own those in many states including Hawaii.  But I digress.  Are missiles unconventional weapons?  Who decides what's conventional and unconventional.  I don't see that language in the 2nd amendment.  Where does it say conventional? 

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.

Please point out where it says I can't own all arms.  Don't forget we can't own automatic rifles.  I would love to see you attempt to purchase a javalin rocket.  I'll refund you the 200 dollars for your tax stamp if you do.

Can't own those in many states including Hawaii.  But I digress.  Are missiles unconventional weapons?  Who decides what's conventional and unconventional.  I don't see that language in the 2nd amendment.  Where does it say conventional? 

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.

Please point out where it says I can't own all arms.  Don't forget we can't own automatic rifles.  I would love to see you attempt to purchase a javalin rocket.  I'll refund you the 200 dollars for your tax stamp if you do.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

1 could argue that not being able to own rocket launchers and nukes goes against the second amendment because it says "arms".   Where do you draw the line?

You said IN THE CONTEXT of the @nd Amendment, you could argue being able to own nukes and rocket launchers.  Nothing about state restrictions.  We already know states violate 2A rights with their laws.  That's not relevant to what the 2A allows.

Heller defined what ARMS meant.  It means ANY WEAPON a soldier would carry on the battlefield.  But here I am repeating myself.

The line exists where reasonable people agree it exists.  Weapons of Mass Destruction reasonably have no place in civilians' homes.  That includes all CBN weapons, many of which are banned by international law.

I know I'm trying to educate someone who can't admit he's wrong. I notice you flipped to "all arms" from "nukes and rocket launchers" after I demonstrated you CAN own rocket launchers.

Why can't you have an honest discussion?  Is it because you hate to be proven wrong over and over?  You keep trying to change what you said to avoid being wrong.  Everyone here sees it.  You aren't winning.

Conventional Weapons encompass a wide range of equipment not limited to armored
combat vehicles, combat helicopters, combat aircraft, warships, small arms and light
weapons, landmines, cluster munitions, ammunition and artillery. Conventional weapons
are the most common type of armament globally and historically the most commonly
used in conflict.

https://unrcpd.org/conventional-weapons/

A weapon that is in relatively wide use and doesn’t include weapons of mass destruction,
such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Examples:  Small arms and light weapons, sea and land mines, non-nuclear bombs, shells,
rockets, missiles and cluster munitions; acceptable use of all types of conventional weapons
in war time is governed by the Geneva Conventions.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conventional+weapons

Possession is one thing.  Nearly all of these are legal to own based on 2A.  What states decide to ban has to be challenged in court, as is the case with many cases in the courts now.

Use of some of these weapons would potentially be unlawful.  Can you make a pipe bomb and just keep it in your cabin in the woods outside city limits?  Look it up.

“The sole purpose of the device [found in the car] was for getting rid of beaver dams,
and there was no nefarious intent,” McGowan said.

The Sioux Falls police conferred with the State’s Attorney, US Attorney and the ATF
office regarding the bomb, and though the investigation is still ongoing, the consensus
is that this particular pipe bomb carried no criminal intent.

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2015/07/02/pipe-bombs-illegal-yes-even-beaver-dams/29638955/

Use (or intended use) vs. possession.  Two different legal arguments.

For some reason, you think possession of "arms" guarantees they will be used unlawfully.  Possession hurts nobody and are covered under the 2A rights.  Gov't can, and does, place certain restrictions on certain weapons and destructive devices.  That's an ancillary discussion, not a 2A discussion.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

You said IN THE CONTEXT of the @nd Amendment, you could argue being able to own nukes and rocket launchers.  Nothing about state restrictions.  We already know states violate 2A rights with their laws.  That's not relevant to what the 2A allows.

Heller defined what ARMS meant.  It means ANY WEAPON a soldier would carry on the battlefield.  But here I am repeating myself.

The line exists where reasonable people agree it exists.  Weapons of Mass Destruction reasonably have no place in civilians' homes.  That includes all CBN weapons, many of which are banned by international law.

I know I'm trying to educate someone who can't admit he's wrong. I notice you flipped to "all arms" from "nukes and rocket launchers" after I demonstrated you CAN own rocket launchers.

Why can't you have an honest discussion?  Is it because you hate to be proven wrong over and over?  You keep trying to change what you said to avoid being wrong.  Everyone here sees it.  You aren't winning.

I did not say Hawaii, which is why I said I digress.  You are technically correct in some states you can purchase some form of "rocket launcher".  I have to try and keep in mind you and others try and nitpick everything to ruin the argument in a whole. I didn't find the best example but regardless the intent remains the same.  The same answer which you refuse to answer. 

Automatic rifles,  which soldiers carry.  This is one example.  IF we want to go out in the weeds, they technically have portable nukes that soldiers can carry.  And soldiers can't carry many of the "arms" you listed so how does that fit in?  Anyway the if you stop focusing on those 2 examples there's many others.  The whole point of this discussion is "arms"  regardless of who decides what, there is a distinction line.  Just like wearing masks would not infringe on the 1st amendment.  Not being able to own nukes wouldn't infringe on the 2nd.  I was trying to prove oil wrong.

I did not say Hawaii, which is why I said I digress.  You are technically correct in some states you can purchase some form of "rocket launcher".  I have to try and keep in mind you and others try and nitpick everything to ruin the argument in a whole. I didn't find the best example but regardless the intent remains the same.  The same answer which you refuse to answer. 

Automatic rifles,  which soldiers carry.  This is one example.  IF we want to go out in the weeds, they technically have portable nukes that soldiers can carry.  And soldiers can't carry many of the "arms" you listed so how does that fit in?  Anyway the if you stop focusing on those 2 examples there's many others.  The whole point of this discussion is "arms"  regardless of who decides what, there is a distinction line.  Just like wearing masks would not infringe on the 1st amendment.  Not being able to own nukes wouldn't infringe on the 2nd.  I was trying to prove oil wrong.

"Nitpick" is the new "calling out your bullshit."   

Full-Auto rifles are legal to own under the US Constitution.  They must be registered and controlled under the NFA.  If states ban them, that's another issue of states violating 2A, not interpretation of the 2A.

You don't know much about 2A considering how much you like to lecture us on it.

"Nitpick" is the new "calling out your bullshit."   

Full-Auto rifles are legal to own under the US Constitution.  They must be registered and controlled under the NFA.  If states ban them, that's another issue of states violating 2A, not interpretation of the 2A.

You don't know much about 2A considering how much you like to lecture us on it.

Just like how you completely ignored half of what I said to find the one thing...

As for your argument of Full-Auto. I guess the USA isnt following 2a at all then.  Last time I checked you can't purchase any Auto rifles (post ban).  Also the 2nd amendment says nothing about the NFA.

Just like how you completely ignored half of what I said to find the one thing...

As for your argument of Full-Auto. I guess the USA isnt following 2a at all then.  Last time I checked you can't purchase any Auto rifles (post ban).  Also the 2nd amendment says nothing about the NFA.

now who is picking and choosing their arguments...

Jesus fucking Christ there are some unbelievably stupid morons posting here. Not that that is news, it's just that they find so many new ways and levels of expressing the moronic stupidity that it boggles the mind. Apparently it's a bottomless pit of obliviousness and stupidity.

I couldn't make a response to one of the ("it's just a mask/6 foot distancing/limited to 10 wedding and funeral attendance, etc.") morons any better than this article appearing yesterday at American Thinker...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/masks_are_just_part_of_the_socialists_uniform.html

Masks Are Just Part of the Socialists' Uniform

[Excerpt}

The Centers for Disease Control released another study showing no statistically significant decrease in "daily case" or "death growth" rates from COVID-19 in areas with mask mandates.  This comes after a similar CDC study in October indicated that mask mandates do not appear to have slowed or stopped the spread of the coronavirus at all.  Still, the CDC continues to recommend that all Americans wear masks, except in certain private settings when individuals are fully vaccinated, unless the goalpost-shifting Dr. Fauci gets his way.

This whole "masks don't seem to be having much effect, but wear them anyway" bureaucratic calculus may seem like a frivolous controversy to Americans preoccupied with the pandemic, but for Americans who are equally worried about the State's steady encroachment into the lives of families, mask mandates are the worst kind of noxious administrative abuse — another iteration of government coercion that constricts a person's freedom while accomplishing next to nothing.  It's government rule-making for the sake of rule-making whose chief purpose is to demonstrate that it is the government's job to command and each citizen's duty to readily obey.

Mask mandates are the perfect metaphor for a government that demands obedience.
...
This symbolism, not the statistically insignificant decrease in infection and death rates in areas with strict mask mandates, is what actually animates those Americans who insist on controlling what covers other Americans' faces.  An American who refuses to participate in virus virtue-signaling is an American who refuses to believe that the economic, educational, and social carnage of the last year was justified. 

And that repudiation is just too much for proponents of bigger and more intrusive government to take in stride.

Just like how you completely ignored half of what I said to find the one thing...

As for your argument of Full-Auto. I guess the USA isnt following 2a at all then.  Last time I checked you can't purchase any Auto rifles (post ban).  Also the 2nd amendment says nothing about the NFA.

When, exactly, was the last time you checked?   

https://www.firinglineoklahoma.com/nfa-items.html#!/H-&-R-Reising-Model-50-Sub-Machine-Gun-Vintage/p/120429415/category=31584129

Maybe you "meant" -- "you can't manufacture or import [full] auto rifles for civilian sales after FOPA 1986?"

The Act also contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine guns
manufactured after the date of enactment, restricting sales of these weapons to the
military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these
arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most
costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private
citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic
firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal
agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these
weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

my body my choice

and somehow the village douchebagg derailed another thread. He/She/them/they is certainly not making much friends in the local 2a community with those antics.

I am convinced that this is a game the millennial chick is playing, maybe called "goad the knuckle-dragger gun fans"

And show them how superior millennial thinking is, all with much affirmation from her social masturbation website "friends"
This is a game, she certainly would not want most of us as any sort of fan or friend.

You don't know much about 2A considering how much you like to lecture us on it.

But, but, but, "Google", the crutch of ignorant children.!!!

More moronic statements by the “Village Idiot”. 

You are avoiding the serious issue his question raises by insulting him.

Clearly he is not arguing that we should all get to own nukes if we want because of the second amendment. Fact is that ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to what "arms" means. Though off topic it is still a fair analogy because someone had to draw a line on what covered free speech. This happens for many of the amendments. You have no business discussing the issue if you can't recognize that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

^^^and here's the other troll derailing a thread

^^^and here's the other troll derailing a thread

Read the comment genius, I am steering it back on topic. Omni was using the 1a as an analogy, not making a separate argument. It's everyone who failed to understand his comment and responded who derailed it.