Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or Fighter Jet

Timshel

New member
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tees-individual-right-own-tank-or-fighter-jet

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton doubled down on his assertion that there are literally no limits on the Second Amendment, declaring that individuals not only have an inalienable right to possess guns, but also tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and anything else they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs:


The belief of the Second Amendment was you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself whether it be against a thug, an aggressor, a crook, or against your government.


Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?


Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ... You have a right to fight back with whatever you can get your hands on to defend your life, your property, your possession, your family, your whatever.
 
surprise surprise the fake libertarian baxter rails against the second amendment. I am shocked :rolleyes:
 
3 of the board libertarians have already disagreed with you baxter. how do you like dem apples? maybe it's time to evaluate your worldview and admit to being the democrat that you secretly are. go take taxpayer money at gunpoint for social programs, which you also have explicitly endorsed.
 
And all the gun nuts froth at the mouth and say "YES! we need tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs" and prove the stupidity of their view of the second amendment.
 
And all the gun nuts froth at the mouth and say "YES! we need tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs" and prove the stupidity of their view of the second amendment.

We don't need to say a word. 3 USSC decisions over the past 80 years say's all that need to be said.

And again, I just love how you equate enjoying a hobby and Constitutional right with insanity.
 
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

"a well regulated militia" reads to me like the 2nd can be limited in scope as the dependent clause,

and the rest:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" - the independent clause is supreme, but not unlimited (regulated).

in other words, the right to bear arms is unlimited, but the types of arms can be regulated
 
A

"a well regulated militia" reads to me like the 2nd can be limited in scope as the dependent clause,

and the rest:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" - the independent clause is supreme, but not unlimited (regulated).

in other words, the right to bear arms is unlimited, but the types of arms can be regulated
shall not be infringed.
.
 
You do know that individuals do own demilitarized versions of both, don't you?

me? If you didn't know i claim purposeful ignorance of anything but military ordnance - even there my knowledge is limited.

I was speaking from a basic Constitutional p.o.v.

To your point though - if they are demilitarized, they are incapable of being a military weapon then.
So they are still 'regulated' i would argue.
 
Re: Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or

3 of the board libertarians have already disagreed with you baxter. how do you like dem apples? maybe it's time to evaluate your worldview and admit to being the democrat that you secretly are. go take taxpayer money at gunpoint for social programs, which you also have explicitly endorsed.

Disagreed with what?

I am sure you will lead the resistance right after you finish cheering for house to house searches and profiling.
 
me? If you didn't know i claim purposeful ignorance of anything but military ordnance - even there my knowledge is limited.

I was speaking from a basic Constitutional p.o.v.

To your point though - if they are demilitarized, they are incapable of being a military weapon then.
So they are still 'regulated' i would argue.

they can probably be easily militarized in a time of crisis.
 
they can probably be easily militarized in a time of crisis.

In a time of crisis getting weapons won't be much of an issue. Any sort of widespread rebellion will likely include some States seceding and military defections along with the immediate seizing of military assets.

It's really sort of stupid to insist that our laws be tailored to your poorly thought out Red Dawn fantasies.
 
fake libertarians like baxter don't believe that. they believe the government is superior and we should just deal with it.

Political newbs like yourself don't know what Liberty is.

Is it Liberty to do anything anywhere no consequences?

Is it Liberty to do anything we want until "proven guilty"?

Or is it "Don't profile people who have abused weapons before. The Correctional facility "corrected" them and that is all we have to know.
 
Baxter is a thinker. Not just a blind idiot that thinks everyone in America deserves all Liberties no matter what.

Learn the difference Fox News puppets.
 
What challenge has there been to the NFA?

There was U.S. v. Miller, but despite how they found Miller (who was DEAD at the time of the case, and his lawyer naturally didn't show up), the decision in Miller supports exactly what I said; that weapons of military utility are protected by the 2A, because that's the entire point of the 2A.
 
In a time of crisis getting weapons won't be much of an issue. Any sort of widespread rebellion will likely include some States seceding and military defections along with the immediate seizing of military assets.

It's really sort of stupid to insist that our laws be tailored to your poorly thought out Red Dawn fantasies.

De-milling has to with ITAR restrictions and exportation, not the 2A.
 
Back
Top