Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those items are random in nature. You can't target a single individual who is causing you or someone else harm in an effort protect yourself or someone else. Also, those could be called offensive weapons since they are random in their destruction.
My weapons are for defensive use only. I have never shot a single living thing with them. I'm not against hunting, I just don't like to get up that early and sit in the cold and I sure don't want to field dress what I shoot. I prefer to get my protein from the Kroger meat market.
These are considered "weapons of mass destruction" are strictly regulated (private ownership effectively banned) by the Federal government. This, however, does not prevent someone with a bit of knowledge and criminal intent (Tim McVey) from rolling their own nefarious device. Most of the instructions are already public knowledge and the precursor ingredients are also available if you know where to look and have a seemingly legitimate use for the quantities required.
In the same manner banning "assault" weapons would have little effect on the incidences of lunatics doing heinous acts upon innocents. There is apparently a really destructive mean streak in some people that is difficult to notice and even more difficult to treat. These people will get the devices they need to wreak the havoc they desire. I do not think there is anything we can do about it except to have our police actively protect the places where we have disarmed the adults in charge. Monsters are not necessarily stupid. They know that a "gun free zone" is much safer to attack than, at the other extreme, a large open Gun Show.
Look, the right to bear arms relates to effectively a right to have something you would be able to actually carry in your own arms, as a member of a militia. Which is basically a gun and not really a whole lot else.
It would not include a tank or an aircraft carrier or an attack helicopter or a stealth fighter. Because that isn't something you could or would carry as a militiaman.
Nor would an individual carry around a nuclear bomb, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or anything of that nature, as part of a militia.
I mean, what kind of weapons might the "national guard" be equipped with? Probably pistols, shotguns, and rifles, and not too much else.
Even the military in the 1700's had cannons. But cannons would not be something someone could "bear arms" with.
Anyway, the protection basically refers to your typical small arms. And yes, assault rifles would be included, almost specifically.
I checked the Bill of Rights and didn't see an amendment saying I had a right to have them.
Missed the point of my question: I stated that a very big reason that many do not want more gun control is because they feel they have the right to protect themselves against an oppressive government. I posited that having the most advanced and powerful automatic weapons will not defend one against the above. In that case, should Americans be able to own above weapons to even the playing field between the government and citizens.
Missed the point of my question: I stated that a very big reason that many do not want more gun control is because they feel they have the right to protect themselves against an oppressive government. I posited that having the most advanced and powerful automatic weapons will not defend one against the above. In that case, should Americans be able to own above weapons to even the playing field between the government and citizens.
Why or why not?
No because our government has only used WMDs twice. It's been conventional warfare before and after those 2 days in 1945.
As far fighting the full force of the US military, it won't happen. Very few will turn against their own neighbors. It's like the US/Russia stand-off during the cold war. No one really wants to go down that road but we are prepared as a last defense.
Missed the point of my question: I stated that a very big reason that many do not want more gun control is because they feel they have the right to protect themselves against an oppressive government. I posited that having the most advanced and powerful automatic weapons will not defend one against the above. In that case, should Americans be able to own above weapons to even the playing field between the government and citizens.
Why or why not?
That is not what you stated .... you said "Anti-gun control people".
I have problems with gun control due to a stated Constitutional right to own them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Existing law
