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.
Weapons that are banned on The National Firearms Act of 1934. Anything else is ok by me. One thing no one has said since the government wants to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, is WHAT are they going to do to get the guns out of the hands of criminals?
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
I would say weapons that you can own and maintain as well as use in a manner that is practical in achieving its use with reasonable control over that use to where it can not reasonably harm an unintended target.
That means, you could own a tank, aircraft, grenade, machine guns, even missiles that meet such criteria.
Weapons such as nuclear, or mass destruction weapons, and most chemical and biological weapons are not "reasonable" or "practical" in their use as they can not be used with any accuracy to reasonably insure they do not harm an innocent.
The rest of conventional weaponry can be used with such precision to reasonably protect from such. More importantly is that they are the types of weaponry that is ideal in defending against the aggression of tyrannical rule.
Were civilians aloud to own motors and cannons back in the day? We can start there.
I think it's safe to say that the term "arms" applied to personal firearms a person could carry, while at the level of what weapon systems and platforms state governments could own, there were no restrictions.
I did not see that in the constitution. There are surface to air missiles that are carried on the shoulder. So should there be no restrictions on surface to air missiles capable of shooting down a passenger airplane?
Were civilians aloud to own motors and cannons back in the day? We can start there.
I think it's safe to say that the term "arms" applied to personal firearms a person could carry, while at the level of what weapon systems and platforms state governments could own, there were no restrictions.
No they were allowed to own muskets. I am o.k. with that. I don't think that you will find very many people who would object to anyone who wants to own a one shot musket that it took 2 minutes to reload. maybe that is where we need to start.
I would say weapons that you can own and maintain as well as use in a manner that is practical in achieving its use with reasonable control over that use to where it can not reasonably harm an unintended target.
That means, you could own a tank, aircraft, grenade, machine guns, even missiles that meet such criteria.
Weapons such as nuclear, or mass destruction weapons, and most chemical and biological weapons are not "reasonable" or "practical" in their use as they can not be used with any accuracy to reasonably insure they do not harm an innocent.
The rest of conventional weaponry can be used with such precision to reasonably protect from such. More importantly is that they are the types of weaponry that is ideal in defending against the aggression of tyrannical rule.
Where do all of these restrictions that you speak of appear in the Constitution? I have never seen them.
Nerve agents can be stored in a glass and are not dangerous at all unless you spill it on yourself or smell it. Most Nerve agents have low vapor hazards...you have to be pretty close for it to effect you...VX for example. So any responsible person could properly take care of VX. It is not inherently dangerous unless a person misuses it. A small vile of Nerve agent, in liquid form, is probably a whole lot less dangerous than an AK 47 in terms of how many people you could effectively kill at one time. Is that considered arms under the constitution? It is a weapon?
Where does it say in the constitution that you can own them only if they don't require special storage devices. I must have missed that.
You got me on that one. I did see a good use of sarin on an episode of "Breaking Bad" where they tried to take another drug dealer.
What does a good set of centrifuges cost? From the stories I read about Iran, it takes quite a while to enrich your own uranium.
The 2nd Amendment says Arms. Arms is defined as a weapon that can be carried by a person. Not artillery. Not a nuke. Even a shoulder fired rocket RPG ect. is considered not an arm but ordinance. So any rifle, handgun, shotgun ect. The Fed. does not have the right to say you can't own this or that but they can regulate it. I would think that if they put Semi autos under NFA rules it would be more constitutional than banning them.
It's not a troll question in the least. This question exposes the stupidity of those who seem to think the 2nd ammendment is unlimited in it's scope. Those who argue that any regulations or restrictions are unconstitutional. It's just an untenable position unless you are as brain dead as that dead skunk in the middle of the road, stinking to high heaven.
In my humble opinion there is very little difference between the dead skunk and the RWNJs.
Nerve agents can be stored in a glass and are not dangerous at all unless you spill it on yourself or smell it. Most Nerve agents have low vapor hazards...you have to be pretty close for it to effect you...VX for example. So any responsible person could properly take care of VX. It is not inherently dangerous unless a person misuses it. A small vile of Nerve agent, in liquid form, is probably a whole lot less dangerous than an AK 47 in terms of how many people you could effectively kill at one time. Is that considered arms under the constitution? It is a weapon?
Where does it say in the constitution that you can own them only if they don't require special storage devices. I must have missed that.
We probably have laws against people owning various types of poisons and and restrictions on explosives like gunpowder and dynamite too. I also think it's safe to say we have laws against people hoarding cultures of deadly diseases and radioactive materials too.
It's not a troll question in the least. This question exposes the stupidity of those who seem to think the 2nd ammendment is unlimited in it's scope. Those who argue that any regulations or restrictions are unconstitutional. It's just an untenable position unless you are as brain dead as that dead skunk in the middle of the road, stinking to high heaven.
In my humble opinion there is very little difference between the dead skunk and the RWNJs.
I would argue the question exposes the OP as someone who fails to understand the issue at hand.
I have asked repeatedly for someone on your side to articulate the valid reasons for the restrictions now being talked about.
No takers. Not one. do you care to enter a discussion about why YOU want to change the exiting law, or do you prefer tilting at windmills?
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.
