Roe and Guns

[Ken]

I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment.

There are no limits in the 2nd Amendment. Congress and states have added limits. States can do so legally. Congress can not.

So the Federal prohibition on possessing anti-aircraft missiles that I cited earlier is illegal? There should be no restrictions on the ability to own a weapon that can bring down a jetliner?

In point of fact, every single Constitutional right is subject to a balancing test. You do not have absolute freedom of speech or freedom of religion either.

[Josh]

I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment.

There are no limits in the 2nd Amendment. Congress and states have added limits. States can do so legally. Congress can not.

So the Federal prohibition on possessing anti-aircraft missiles that I cited earlier is illegal? There should be no restrictions on the ability to own a weapon that can bring down a jetliner?

In point of fact, every single Constitutional right is subject to a balancing test. You do not have absolute freedom of speech or freedom of religion either.

What’s next? “You don’t have absolute freedom from slavery”

[Robert]

I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment.

There are no limits in the 2nd Amendment. Congress and states have added limits. States can do so legally. Congress can not.

So the Federal prohibition on possessing anti-aircraft missiles that I cited earlier is illegal? There should be no restrictions on the ability to own a weapon that can bring down a jetliner?

In point of fact, every single Constitutional right is subject to a balancing test. You do not have absolute freedom of speech or freedom of religion either.

As I read the 10th Amendment, you do. It is up to the individual states to set the restrictions. Multiple of the Supreme Court Justices are Constitutionalists and Federalists. This is why many of these previous rulings are being struck down. They see it this way also. I am not saying there should not be limits. I am saying it needs to be done at the proper place, or a new Amendment needs to be added to create the federal right to do such things, such as the 13th and 19th Amendments.

[Ken]

There are no limits in the 2nd Amendment. Congress and states have added limits. States can do so legally. Congress can not.

So the Federal prohibition on possessing anti-aircraft missiles that I cited earlier is illegal? There should be no restrictions on the ability to own a weapon that can bring down a jetliner?

In point of fact, every single Constitutional right is subject to a balancing test. You do not have absolute freedom of speech or freedom of religion either.

As I read the 10th Amendment, you do. It is up to the individual states to set the restrictions. Multiple of the Supreme Court Justices are Constitutionalists and Federalists. This is why many of these previous rulings are being struck down. They see it this way also. I am not saying there should not be limits. I am saying it needs to be done at the proper place, or a new Amendment needs to be added to create the federal right to do such things, such as the 13th and 19th Amendments.

Yes, but under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce. Much of the regulation of firearms comes under the general category of regulation of commerce. That is where the ATF derives its authority. Furthermore, Article 1 obligates the Federal government to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Prohibiting ownership or possession of highly destructive weapons of war such as stinger missiles certainly falls within that obligation and authority. So again, there is a balancing act and the 10th Amendment doesn't really apply. We do not rely on individual states to prevent things like anti-aircraft missiles from falling into the hands of domestic or foreign terrorists operating in the US. The Federal government does it as they are the ones best equipped to do it and provide for the common defense against such terror.

[Robert]

Yes, but under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce. Much of the regulation of firearms comes under the general category of regulation of commerce. That is where the ATF derives its authority.

And I disagree with that interpretation. I do not think the founders were wanting that when they penned this part. I think much of the use of the commerce clause the past 40 years is a distortion of the original intent. It is a way to get around the statehood of the document and build more power in the Federal government. Again, I disagree with a strong Federal authority.

[Robert]

We do not rely on individual states to prevent things like anti-aircraft missiles from falling into the hands of domestic or foreign terrorists operating in the US.

The US military is not supposed to exert force against the citizenry, even if they are terrorist. Why can't the state law enforcement handle it?

[Ken]

We do not rely on individual states to prevent things like anti-aircraft missiles from falling into the hands of domestic or foreign terrorists operating in the US.

The US military is not supposed to exert force against the citizenry, even if they are terrorist. Why can't the state law enforcement handle it?

We aren't talking about the US military. We are talking about the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, Customs Service, and a host of other Federal agencies that do indeed have jurisdiction within the US and have tremendously greater resources and expertise than state police.

How are the Indiana State Police supposed to catch a terrorist who flies into Chicago or crosses the border in Michigan, acquires weapons, and then heads to Indiana to blow up a public building or shoot an airliner out of the sky? Do you have border checkpoints to screen people entering the state? Can your State Police track foreign and domestic terrorists around the globe and know when they are entering Indiana?

If we did away with the FBI and other Federal police agencies, they would just need to be replicated by 50 different states and that would make no sense whatsoever and make law enforcement far less efficient. Most serious crimes like terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking, money laundering, financial fraud, counterfeiting, and all other forms of organized crime cross state boundaries.

[ken_sylvania]

That is governed by other laws. This is what prohibits private ownership of working stinger missiles so that crazy people or terrorists don't shoot down airplanes in the US. The penalty for possessing a working anti-aircraft missile in the US is 20 years to life. The US government REALLY doesn't want people owning these things.

......You can't own a working Sherman tank with functional machine guns or main gun.

Like Josh said, this statement of yours about citizens not being able to own a working tank is false.
In my opinion a law prohibiting ownership of guided missiles has nothing to do with whether owning a working tank is illegal.

I’m not sure how we got this far sidetracked. I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment. All we are really debating is where we draw the line. I used the random example of stinger missiles and working tanks. It is clearly illegal to possess a stinger missile or any other similar anti-aircraft weapon. I cited the statute.

As for tanks, which was just a random example. It turns out that the US government does not ever sell surplus tanks to civilians. And you can’t buy one from the manufacturer. You can’t go buy a M1A1 Abrams at any price from General Dynamics. The are prohibited from selling them to civilians. So people who want to purchase tanks generally have to do it by buying them from foreign countries where the are sometimes sold to the public when surplussed. However you cannot own one with a working main gun unless you have a Federal Destructive License which are not generally issued to people for the purpose of private ownership tanks unless you have a very specific demonstrated need. And every round of ammunition is separately considered a destructive device and requires all the same permits and licenses as the tank itself. Research it all you want. People say it is basically impossible for a civilian to get the necessary permits to own a tank with a working main cannon. And even if you got that far, most state laws prohibit ownership of any working big bore weapons of that caliber such as tank guns or howitzers. So prior to import, people have to have the main guns and firing systems disabled which essentially turns the tank into a bulldozer with armor that they can actually own.

Are you defining “working” as one that actually runs? Or are you defining “working” as having a main cannon that can aim and fire armor piercing or high explosive shells. I’m talking about the latter.

The thing about tanks was a random example that you got wrong. You could just admit that you were wrong and Josh was right!

I'm defining a "working" tank as one that has not been demilitarized so that explosive shells can still be fired from the main cannon. Like the privately owned Sherman tanks you can drive and shoot at Ox Hunting Ranch in Uvalde, TX.

[Ken]

Like Josh said, this statement of yours about citizens not being able to own a working tank is false.
In my opinion a law prohibiting ownership of guided missiles has nothing to do with whether owning a working tank is illegal.

I’m not sure how we got this far sidetracked. I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment. All we are really debating is where we draw the line. I used the random example of stinger missiles and working tanks. It is clearly illegal to possess a stinger missile or any other similar anti-aircraft weapon. I cited the statute.

As for tanks, which was just a random example. It turns out that the US government does not ever sell surplus tanks to civilians. And you can’t buy one from the manufacturer. You can’t go buy a M1A1 Abrams at any price from General Dynamics. The are prohibited from selling them to civilians. So people who want to purchase tanks generally have to do it by buying them from foreign countries where the are sometimes sold to the public when surplussed. However you cannot own one with a working main gun unless you have a Federal Destructive License which are not generally issued to people for the purpose of private ownership tanks unless you have a very specific demonstrated need. And every round of ammunition is separately considered a destructive device and requires all the same permits and licenses as the tank itself. Research it all you want. People say it is basically impossible for a civilian to get the necessary permits to own a tank with a working main cannon. And even if you got that far, most state laws prohibit ownership of any working big bore weapons of that caliber such as tank guns or howitzers. So prior to import, people have to have the main guns and firing systems disabled which essentially turns the tank into a bulldozer with armor that they can actually own.

Are you defining “working” as one that actually runs? Or are you defining “working” as having a main cannon that can aim and fire armor piercing or high explosive shells. I’m talking about the latter.

The thing about tanks was a random example that you got wrong. You could just admit that you were wrong and Josh was right!

I'm defining a "working" tank as one that has not been demilitarized so that explosive shells can still be fired from the main cannon. Like the privately owned Sherman tanks you can drive and shoot at Ox Hunting Ranch in Uvalde, TX.

According to their web site they are the ONLY place in the country where you can drive and shoot working tanks: https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/activiti ... k-driving/ They charge people $3200 to drive the tank and shoot ONE round. You can also go there and shoot an African Bongo antelope for $45,000 or any number of dozens of other exotic game. The place was built by a tech millionaire who took his $200 million tech startup fortune and rolled it into what is probably the fanciest exotic hunting ranch in the country. They also have 18,000 acres.

Do you think you can legally acquire a fully working tank yourself? If it is so easy, why is one massive exotic game hunting ranch in rural west Texas the only place in the country where you can do this? They will also sell you tanks. They have tanks for sale on their web site. But only tanks with the main gun disabled. They can't sell you a fully working tank. Why do you think that is?

[ken_sylvania]

I’m not sure how we got this far sidetracked. I was only making the point that there are limits to the Second Amendment. All we are really debating is where we draw the line. I used the random example of stinger missiles and working tanks. It is clearly illegal to possess a stinger missile or any other similar anti-aircraft weapon. I cited the statute.

As for tanks, which was just a random example. It turns out that the US government does not ever sell surplus tanks to civilians. And you can’t buy one from the manufacturer. You can’t go buy a M1A1 Abrams at any price from General Dynamics. The are prohibited from selling them to civilians. So people who want to purchase tanks generally have to do it by buying them from foreign countries where the are sometimes sold to the public when surplussed. However you cannot own one with a working main gun unless you have a Federal Destructive License which are not generally issued to people for the purpose of private ownership tanks unless you have a very specific demonstrated need. And every round of ammunition is separately considered a destructive device and requires all the same permits and licenses as the tank itself. Research it all you want. People say it is basically impossible for a civilian to get the necessary permits to own a tank with a working main cannon. And even if you got that far, most state laws prohibit ownership of any working big bore weapons of that caliber such as tank guns or howitzers. So prior to import, people have to have the main guns and firing systems disabled which essentially turns the tank into a bulldozer with armor that they can actually own.

Are you defining “working” as one that actually runs? Or are you defining “working” as having a main cannon that can aim and fire armor piercing or high explosive shells. I’m talking about the latter.

The thing about tanks was a random example that you got wrong. You could just admit that you were wrong and Josh was right!

I'm defining a "working" tank as one that has not been demilitarized so that explosive shells can still be fired from the main cannon. Like the privately owned Sherman tanks you can drive and shoot at Ox Hunting Ranch in Uvalde, TX.

According to their web site they are the ONLY place in the country where you can drive and shoot working tanks: https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/activiti ... k-driving/ They charge people $3200 to drive the tank and shoot ONE round. You can also go there and shoot an African Bongo antelope for $45,000 or any number of dozens of other exotic game. The place was built by a tech millionaire who took his $200 million tech startup fortune and rolled it into what is probably the fanciest exotic hunting ranch in the country. They also have 18,000 acres.

Do you think you can legally acquire a fully working tank yourself? If it is so easy, why is one massive exotic game hunting ranch in rural west Texas the only place in the country where you can do this? They will also sell you tanks. They have tanks for sale on their web site. But only tanks with the main gun disabled. They can't sell you a fully working tank. Why do you think that is?

Oh, is that what their website says? I can't find such a statement anywhere on there. But who cares about accuracy....

There's a place out in Vegas that's got an M60 they let people fire. And a place in MN that apparently at least used to have a tank with a fully functional main cannon if they don't still have it.

I'm well aware it's a difficult process to get the licenses and permits to own a fully functional tank and cannon, but obviously it is possible.