I have heard that the Supreme Court believes that “shall not be infringed” refers to the right to own and bear arms, but does not refer to just any arms.
Personally, I am fine with private citizens having most of the guns that our military has. But, if you are talking nukes, no, let’s keep that highly restricted.
If the 2nd Amendment is an “absolute” right, wouldn’t that mean that recently convicted felons can still go out and buy a gun? I don’t know of any right that is absolute. For instance, with respect to the First Amendment, we all know that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a movie theater or show an obscene porn movie on a kids channel. And yet, we hold the precepts of the First Amendment as sacrosanct in our country. Unfortunately, our country doesn’t have the same reverence for the 2nd Amendment, as noted by much of society’s disdain for it and the courts’ unwillingness to recognize what many of us on here believe it stands for. But I respectfully disagree that it is an absolute right. Just my humble opinion, though.
Aha!!! I have had plenty of discussions on these topics as well.
As to felons. I have a different perspective. If they have served their time, and someone decided they can rejoin the society i say they should regain their rights. Plus not all felonies are violent offenses. If on the other hand we are not comfortable with felons getting firearms then perhaps we should not have them rejoin society where they will have access to other means of causing violence.
As to yelling “Fire” in a theater, or speaking in general… you actually can say whatever you want, but then you will punished. So you can use speech in the matter that is up to you, but if it causes panic and harm to others you will be punished. Guns are treated differently. You are being prevented from using any gun you want and wherever you want, to where you dont have a choice to either use it to cause harm or not. And that is exactly the thing that causes more deaths. For example gun-free zones.
Excellent points! I agree with some convicted felons being able to regain their rights after a period of time. Perhaps non-violent convictions after a period of time successfully completing probation and parole requirements. I have a friend with a 30 year non-violent felony who’s never been in trouble afterwards, but not all of his rights are restored. But those with long rap sheets and multiple felonies who might otherwise qualify for three-strikes-you’re-out laws may be a different story.
I also agree that “gun-free zones” are dangerous and mis-placed and serve to invite violence against innocent victims.
Nukes is another one of those subjects i have discussed at length with other people…
The purpose of the second amendment is to oppose oppression and tyrany. What that would mean is to be able to oppose the government that attempts to oppress the people. Usually, using nukes would mean to elliminate people, not oppress them. That is why there isn’t one person in full control of a nuke. And which is why no country would ever launch a nuke onto its own land, f#%$ing its own resources.
We as a nation have nukes. So yes, you, me, everyone else here has nukes.
Once you get them to agree to the terms of discussion (relevant vs irrelevant) you move onto more realistic topics.
I’ve used this similar point with the anti-2A crowd when I’m in a conversation with them. Those not as polite and eloquently. 
Because, Torgue.
Also as to felons.
Lets consider, for example, that a felon has a family. When they return from serving their time their family will not be able to own guns in the same house.
And i should mention that i am for death penalty for anyone who purposely and unequivocally takes lives, rapes people, etc. Those should never be allowed to rejoin the society.
I want a mini-nuke launcher for HD and edc.
Lol. Oh come on Dad. Just one? Please? I’ll use it safely, I promise.
Most interpret the 2A as such that a private citizen uses any means necessary to combat and defeat tyranny. I forget the chap’s name but in the 19th century some dude asked congress if he was allowed to use a cannon under the 2A and they said yes. Trying to find this on the internets now…
As regards to yelling fire in a theater… I think the point is you can’t falsly yell fire. If there was a fire I sure hope someone would yell fire. If they get in trouble for it I’d like to be on their jury. They’d get a free pass from me. And a box of chocolates.
^ This. Slightly off topic but my list of executable offenses once found guilty are:
So, I’m not sure where I stand on the felon thing but I lean towards if they serve a proper amount of time and are legitimately appearing to be rehabilitated to give them rights back with the caveat that if they commit a felony, ANY felony while in possession of any firearm they are executed once found guilty. No plea deals allowed. We need more crime deterrent in today’s society, our justice system is too lenient towards convicted criminals.
I was going to mention that - and if you back go further into TV history and the “good ol’boys” who were “convicted felons” and what they used.
one simple argument is
Do you believe in the First amendment
How about the Fourth and Fifth
then the 2nd is there to protect you and those rights.
Youtube Patreon?
I wish this wasn’t publicized to be honest. He and others like him that put this out are only wishing for the anti-2A to push to have these reclassified as firearms… They need to shut up and keep the secret. 
Nothing against this guy personally just so you know.
But I need one or two! You dont know my family!
I found what you were talking about and yes, canons were initially allowed. Not sure they would be allowed now, though.
Instagram
FULL30 Blog
Member Map
FULL30 Store
Giveaway Page
Ammo.com Gift
Tactical Reviews
SOG Donations