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.
The point that should enter the adult mind is that there are some highly-refined devices of destruction that should be greatly limited from broad public ownership. And for the record, Timothy McVeigh never had nerve gas or a bio agent; if he had, he could have killed tens of thousands.
The point is, Timothy McVeigh commited mass murder without ever firing a shot, and he did it with legal substances, which are readily available.. He was insane and you can't prevent a maniac from finding some way to commit a violent and deadly act. We will always have those among us who will plan and carry out terrible acts of violence and we will always have mass murders. Changing firearms laws will not prevent them. All they will do is prevent honest citizens from having the means to defend themselves.
The point is, Timothy McVeigh commited mass murder without ever firing a shot, and he did it with legal substances, which are readily available.. He was insane and you can't prevent a maniac from finding some way to commit a violent and deadly act. We will always have those among us who will plan and carry out terrible acts of violence and we will always have mass murders. Changing firearms laws will not prevent them. All they will do is prevent honest citizens from having the means to defend themselves.
So employing your reductionist logic, we should have no restrictions on anything, ever, because someone may always find a way to do something bad.
Why have any laws? Why not just revert back to the tree-swinging jungle days and live in glorious anarchy?
Ah yes, I love the pro-gun stance, it is already out there so why try and do anything. For being all gung-ho on revolutions you guys sure love to sit on your hands a lot.
Please show me the quote where I have ever advocated revolution.. Once again, when you can't win the discussion, change the narrative and point a finger... Why does this not surprise me?
When talking about the Second Amendment, there's one thing to keep in mind. It really hasn't been very well fleshed out in the courts. There have been two very recent cases (the Heller and McDonald decisions) that have confirmed that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms, and that this applies to all levels of government. Beyond that, there's very little jurisprudence.
Going back to the OP's question. There is something called the National Firearms Act. It's the law the regulates possession of the types of weapons he was talking about. There was one SCOTUS ruling on that law. It's in the Miller case. The weapon in question in that case was a sawed off shotgun (illegal under the NFA, without significant paperwork.) The ruling, from what I remember, basically stated that since the weapon in question wasn't a valid military weapon (armies not generally using sawed off shotguns) it wasn't protected by the Second Amendment. The converse of this, whether the possession of valid military weapons by civilians is protected, has never been ruled on.
In light of the Heller and McDonald, this may very come up. What also is very likely to be heavily tested is what level of regulation the government can impose.
Please show me the quote where I have ever advocated revolution.. Once again, when you can't win the discussion, change the narrative and point a finger... Why does this not surprise me?
I didn't mean you in particular, I mean in general on this forum. Sorry for the confusion.
If you do that, then you have committed murder, just as you would have been charged in 1775. The founders probably had no idea of what the future would hold, but the constitution is still applicable to our modern world... If you murdered someone in 1775, chances are your punishment would have been more severe than it is today, but you would still have been arrested and charged... Nothing has really changed.
The real problem here is that progressives want that Constitution thrown away so they can replace it with something more like what they see as reasonable. I think that would be something that upholds socialism more and the 2nd Amendment happens to be a handy place to start. Now our leaners may not be able to see that but it is there if they would open their eyes and stop being useful idiots.
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.
