I’m one of those “all guns should be banned” people so it’s an easy no from me.
But maybe it would ratchet up the arms race here in America and mass shootings using drones would finally be the tipping point for people to re-visit the 2A.
….but probably not. Elementary school kids getting disemboweled by bullets doesn’t seem to move the needle as it is.
>”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.”
Arms. Not guns. ARMS. We should be able to buy mortars and grenades and tanks and sure armed drones…. Everything.
That we all readily accept limits on all the stuff that can cause massive property damage for the rich that own everything, but demand Freedom to buy guns that makes gun manufacturers tons of money and only kills each other…. Well, I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
And I get pissed at Righties that demand guns because of the 2A but readily accept all the other limits on Arms. /eyeroll
Historically, the scope of the second amendment has been shrinking. It began encompassing all arms, but then the NFA passed, barring things like rifles that are too small. The 86 machine gun laws banned those next. Now we’re in a situation where states are banning pistols that can be suppressed, as well as rifles with you hold certain ways, as well as magazines. The history of the second amendment is one of concessions constantly being made to those who want to ‘meet in the middle’. The issue is that the new middle is the pasts authoritarian extreme.
So would this qualify as an arm, yes, according to the constitution and Supreme Court. Do states at all care about those two things, no.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
for individuals
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I think you could argue that a drone entails more than just ‘arms’, and you don’t really ‘bear’ a drone so much as fly it.
In other words, you could probably just make the drone part of the weaponized drone illegal since the drone part isn’t a weapon.
I don’t think saying that it’s illegal to mount a gun on a drone would infringe on the 2nd amendment since the drone is bearing the arms, not you.
No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU
Give me the same tools that government individuals have for their self defense. Key word “defense” not “offense”.
Would be debatable.
Current definitions determined by the Supreme Court:
Arms: weapons of offense or armor of defense.
A drone fits.
“Bearable arms”
Something that can be carried. A piece of artillery or a heavy machine gun for example cannot be but a drone can.
Honestly it’s a good question that would most certainly lead to debate.
I’m sure gun funs will argue that they absolutely need it for “SeLf DeFeNsE” and Alito will find 17th century British common law to justify it.
This is the kind of topic I like to see here
And
That’s a no for me
I don’t think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with an individual’s right to bear arms.
“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.”
The people is not a person.
I’m one of those “all guns should be banned” people so it’s an easy no from me.
But maybe it would ratchet up the arms race here in America and mass shootings using drones would finally be the tipping point for people to re-visit the 2A.
….but probably not. Elementary school kids getting disemboweled by bullets doesn’t seem to move the needle as it is.
>”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.”
Arms. Not guns. ARMS. We should be able to buy mortars and grenades and tanks and sure armed drones…. Everything.
That we all readily accept limits on all the stuff that can cause massive property damage for the rich that own everything, but demand Freedom to buy guns that makes gun manufacturers tons of money and only kills each other…. Well, I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
And I get pissed at Righties that demand guns because of the 2A but readily accept all the other limits on Arms. /eyeroll
Historically, the scope of the second amendment has been shrinking. It began encompassing all arms, but then the NFA passed, barring things like rifles that are too small. The 86 machine gun laws banned those next. Now we’re in a situation where states are banning pistols that can be suppressed, as well as rifles with you hold certain ways, as well as magazines. The history of the second amendment is one of concessions constantly being made to those who want to ‘meet in the middle’. The issue is that the new middle is the pasts authoritarian extreme.
So would this qualify as an arm, yes, according to the constitution and Supreme Court. Do states at all care about those two things, no.
Yes.
We should be able to own anything the police can.
No, guns shouldnt be either.