Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Below the Radar: HR 2671 - The Flamethrowers? Really? Act 2020

  1. #1
    Team GunsNet Gold 07/2012 / Super Moderator Gunreference1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    AZ USA
    Posts
    7,267

    Below the Radar: HR 2671 - The Flamethrowers? Really? Act 2020

    After today, it's all historical.

  2. #2
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    7,943
    The Second Amendment does not protect flame throwers. Extending the definition of flame thrower to include normally used firearms does violate the 2A, though.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  3. #3
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    The Second Amendment does not protect flame throwers. Extending the definition of flame thrower to include normally used firearms does violate the 2A, though.
    Does a flamethrower not count as "arms"?

  4. #4
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,778
    This is one time I agree that a flame thrower is not protected in "shall not be infringed".

  5. #5
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    Does a flamethrower not count as "arms"?
    Arms, as discussed in the 2A, are what would be used by the common soldier that required no specialized training. This would include rifles, shotguns, handguns, knives, lances, swords, etc, even fully automatic small arms, but not flame throwers, bazookas, heavy machine guns, nuclear weapons, and the like. Because we extend the definition beyond what is written it makes it easier for those who dislike firearms to restrict the definition well less than what was intended.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  6. #6
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,131
    I have to respectfully disagree. No where in the text of the constitution does it say anything about common use, that was part of the supreme court's interpretation. Imho it says arms, you should be able to privately own a jet, tank or aircraft carrier if you can afford it.

  7. #7
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    I have to respectfully disagree. No where in the text of the constitution does it say anything about common use, that was part of the supreme court's interpretation. Imho it says arms, you should be able to privately own a jet, tank or aircraft carrier if you can afford it.
    The 2A as we all know says "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." To me the definitional phrase, the one that identifies the arms protected by the 2A, is the first "A well regulated militia". As we know the militia was all citizenry (with the exception of medically trained people and the clergy) that acted as infantry. These citizens supplied their own weapons for military service. Those who trained as in artillery were provided with arms, they did not posses those arms and they required specialized training not found in the normal militia drilling. The addition of the descriptive phrase "keep and bear arms" further identifies the arms protected as those that can be kept and carried. This excludes jets, tanks, cannon, nuclear weapons and any type of warship (while they could be kept, I guess, they cannot be carried), but it includes, as I stated earlier, rifles, automatic weapons (M4s, M16s, AKs, FALs, etc) handguns, knives and the rest (they are kept and carried by all soldiers). While I think the SCOTUS took their definition too far by excluding short barreled shotguns, I agree with their general logic. In my view, a flame thrower is not an arm carried by the common soldier so it is not protected even though it can be carried (the user bears it).

    It is important to note that the 2A, while not protecting the right to all arms, provides the ability to acquire all arms. Were it necessary to acquire a tank, I could do so with the arms protected by the 2A. By the government infringing on the right guaranteed by the 2A, they also make it more difficult to acquire other arms. The Revolutionary War has great examples of this where Patriots using the arms of a militia were able to acquire artillery necessary to effectively take on larger scale military actions.

    As long as I am pontificating I thought I would throw in one other point that liberals and gun control advocates miss. The militia was the result of the citizens keeping a bearing arms, not the reason they kept and carried arms. A free people can freely form a militia because they have the right to be armed. To take away the right to keep and bear arms takes away the ability to freely come together for protection which takes away their ability to be free.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  8. #8
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    12,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    The 2A as we all know says "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." To me the definitional phrase, the one that identifies the arms protected by the 2A, is the first "A well regulated militia". As we know the militia was all citizenry (with the exception of medically trained people and the clergy) that acted as infantry. These citizens supplied their own weapons for military service. Those who trained as in artillery were provided with arms, they did not posses those arms and they required specialized training not found in the normal militia drilling. The addition of the descriptive phrase "keep and bear arms" further identifies the arms protected as those that can be kept and carried. This excludes jets, tanks, cannon, nuclear weapons and any type of warship (while they could be kept, I guess, they cannot be carried), but it includes, as I stated earlier, rifles, automatic weapons (M4s, M16s, AKs, FALs, etc) handguns, knives and the rest (they are kept and carried by all soldiers). While I think the SCOTUS took their definition too far by excluding short barreled shotguns, I agree with their general logic. In my view, a flame thrower is not an arm carried by the common soldier so it is not protected even though it can be carried (the user bears it).

    It is important to note that the 2A, while not protecting the right to all arms, provides the ability to acquire all arms. Were it necessary to acquire a tank, I could do so with the arms protected by the 2A. By the government infringing on the right guaranteed by the 2A, they also make it more difficult to acquire other arms. The Revolutionary War has great examples of this where Patriots using the arms of a militia were able to acquire artillery necessary to effectively take on larger scale military actions.

    As long as I am pontificating I thought I would throw in one other point that liberals and gun control advocates miss. The militia was the result of the citizens keeping a bearing arms, not the reason they kept and carried arms. A free people can freely form a militia because they have the right to be armed. To take away the right to keep and bear arms takes away the ability to freely come together for protection which takes away their ability to be free.
    And right there, you have the primary purpose libtards and Commucrats want to eliminate privately owned arms. They can't keep power and rule over us if we are armed, therefore, they must disarm us first.

    ANY gun control law, no matter how small, is just one more step towards their agenda of taking over the US by unconstitutional means and turning us into a Communist/Socialist state.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

    I'd rather be an American than a Democrat.

  9. #9
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,131
    Ar you sure none of those cannons were privately owned? This is also starting to sound a lot like the left's 2a argument that it should only supply to arms that existed at the time it was enacted i.e. flint lock technology

  10. #10
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    12,058
    My thoughts on this (not they are correct) is that whatever a soldier can "normally" transport and use, is covered by the 2nd Amendment. Flamethrowers can be carried and used by a soldier, a bazooka can be carried and used by a soldier, hand grenades can be carried and used by a soldier.

    A jet cannot be carried, a tank cannot be carried, and battle ship cannot be carried (nor operated by one soldier).

    If it's too large to be used, or carried, by a soldier, it's not covered.

    However, deactivated military hardware can be purchased and owned by almost anyone if they have the money.

    So, flame throwers should come under 2A protection, but tanks, jets, rocket launchers, nukes, battleships, no, if they're not deactivated.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

    I'd rather be an American than a Democrat.

  11. #11
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by alismith View Post
    My thoughts on this (not they are correct) is that whatever a soldier can "normally" transport and use, is covered by the 2nd Amendment. Flamethrowers can be carried and used by a soldier, a bazooka can be carried and used by a soldier, hand grenades can be carried and used by a soldier.

    A jet cannot be carried, a tank cannot be carried, and battle ship cannot be carried (nor operated by one soldier).

    If it's too large to be used, or carried, by a soldier, it's not covered.

    However, deactivated military hardware can be purchased and owned by almost anyone if they have the money.

    So, flame throwers should come under 2A protection, but tanks, jets, rocket launchers, nukes, battleships, no, if they're not deactivated.
    I would draw the line at NBC weapons as other than nuclear I don't think even our government should have them.

  12. #12
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    12,058
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    I would draw the line at NBC weapons as other than nuclear I don't think even our government should have them.
    Yeah. I guess the easiest way to say what I tried to say is that whatever a soldier, sailor, etc. is supplied with once they complete their training and go in the field and are normally issued, should be covered by the 2A. If the average military person isn't issued a certain piece of equipment as part of their standard equipment, then it, probably, isn't covered the the 2A. Usually, this is what they can carry on their person.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

    My Spirit Animal has rabies.

    I'd rather be an American than a Democrat.

  13. #13
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    Ar you sure none of those cannons were privately owned? This is also starting to sound a lot like the left's 2a argument that it should only supply to arms that existed at the time it was enacted i.e. flint lock technology
    I didn’t say that cannon could not be privately owned, but that those that used them did not own them. As for that being a defense of artillery pieces being included in the 2A, it is a very weak argument. There are many things available and legal to own that are not a right to own. For example, beer is legal to own, but it is not a right to own. Cars are legal to own, but there is no inherent right to own a car. One of the problems we have now is trying to conflate the ability to do something with the right to do something. They are different.

    My argument is totally different than the left’s argument that the 2A should only apply to flintlocks. They try to anchor the definition of arms in what was known in the 1790s, not considering that the Founders expected new innovations to change how military arms were made and what their capabilities were. My definition of arms is the same as the Founders used, weapons that would be used by the common soldier. My definition does not limit these arms to a timeframe, just as the Founders used language that was not timeframe dependent. As new arms are issues to the common soldier those same arms should be available to the common citizen.

    By trying to expand the 2A to things not covered by it, we open the 2A up to attacks on what is rightfully protected by it.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •