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.
You write an overly verbose post that says actually nothing and does not address the original OP or the quote with which you responded. The question and the thrust of the OP is how can we ban other weapons and not ban assault weapons. Why is one protected by the Constitution and not the other?
Sorry, me use small words for you so you keep up.
The Constitution does not define/describe/list any specific weapon such as musket, rifle, blunderbuss etc.
Because they are not specifically designated, it would fall under the jurisdicition of the state if they formed a militia that was armed with for instance cannons or explosives.
Without specific regulation included in the Bill of Rights limiting weapons, it then falls upon the states to regulate without removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, laws such as the 1930s laws and the 1968 laws as passed by the congress did not ban or remove the right to keep and bear arms, but did limit for instance sending guns through the mail.
An Individual wants to protect their home and family, hunt, shoot recreationally. A firearm is a logical choice. It is inexpensive, easy to use, and the models and calibers are in varieties wide enough to encompass just about anybodies wants or desires.
Yet the Constitution does not limit them to a simple side arm or firearm, so in many states it is completely legal to own a machine gun up to and including a Browning 50 Cal if they want.
The states don't prohibit it, so while the fed requires it to be registered, nothing says that an indivdual cannot own that weapon.
If a neighborhood watch bands together and decides for their security, an armored car with gun mounts for grenade launchers and automatic weapons is required. The City could authorize that if it saw a need, and the individuals banding together in a form of militia could legally own that equipment.
Now, if the State of Oregon for instance decided that protection of their shoreline was necessary, and a militia of citizens were organized for that purpose, the state could arm that militia with coastal guns, or surface to surface missiles, or lasers, or whatever it deemed appropriate for the level of defense they needed for their security.
The State of Kansas wouldn't need emplaced coastal guns, but might find tanks appropriate.
So now we are up to the National Guard.
Neither of these examples infringes on the Second Amendment, nor do they limit what the average citizen could own or use. However, individuals may find it difficult to pay for and maintain an ICBM, most states wouldn't want that expense either, but the fed has a national security intrest in protecting the whole country, so an ICBM is a legitimate weapon.
Your premise is to try and make owning a firearm absurd and foolish, but your only solution is that you have decided that only muskets should be owned.
Do you preclude Major Fergussons breech loading musket? how about the air rifle carried by Lewis and Clark on the Corps of Discovery expedition?
Would multibarreled black powder weapons be excluded? how about black powder revolvers? What calibers are approved by you? What propellants would meet your specific standards.
Bring something to the table besides a belittling attitude please.
You think you are making an intellectually profound statement to show how ridiculous it is for anyone to own the means to protect themselves or exercise their Constitutional rights by making statements like "if you can own a grenade launcher, why not a nerve gas?"
You seek to make the desire of people to protect themselves and exercise their Constitutional rights seem inferior to your own enlightened point of view.
Your arguments are not witty, simply specious without reason or logic.
If you were to push the envelope and actually attempt to make reasoned arguments, to use logic and provide real alternatives, it would be enjoyable to debate.
However your psych 101 attempts to portray the people who support the Constitution and Second Amendment as inferior to you are merely the internet version of "I know you are but what am I" prepubesent schoolyard garbage that fails to make any substanitive comments on the issue and do not promote your reasoning as anything adolesent at best.
Your point of view is apparent. Your logic and arguments are severly lacking.
When the 2nd amendment was introduced they were pretty much using flint locks right. I don't think they envisioned rapid fire machine guns at the time. Why not just limit ownership to a musket and I am o.k with allowing anyone to own the type of weapon that was available at the time of the constitution.
I'm cool with that.
As long as you're cool with limiting free speech to whoever's within earshot, letter writing and to those who own a printing press. After all, that's what "was available at the time of the constitution," right? The Internet shouldn't count. Telephones shouldn't count. Television shouldn't count. You good with that?
The Constitution does not define/describe/list any specific weapon such as musket, rifle, blunderbuss etc.
Because they are not specifically designated, it would fall under the jurisdicition of the state if they formed a militia that was armed with for instance cannons or explosives.
Without specific regulation included in the Bill of Rights limiting weapons, it then falls upon the states to regulate without removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, laws such as the 1930s laws and the 1968 laws as passed by the congress did not ban or remove the right to keep and bear arms, but did limit for instance sending guns through the mail.
An Individual wants to protect their home and family, hunt, shoot recreationally. A firearm is a logical choice. It is inexpensive, easy to use, and the models and calibers are in varieties wide enough to encompass just about anybodies wants or desires.
Yet the Constitution does not limit them to a simple side arm or firearm, so in many states it is completely legal to own a machine gun up to and including a Browning 50 Cal if they want.
The states don't prohibit it, so while the fed requires it to be registered, nothing says that an indivdual cannot own that weapon.
If a neighborhood watch bands together and decides for their security, an armored car with gun mounts for grenade launchers and automatic weapons is required. The City could authorize that if it saw a need, and the individuals banding together in a form of militia could legally own that equipment.
Now, if the State of Oregon for instance decided that protection of their shoreline was necessary, and a militia of citizens were organized for that purpose, the state could arm that militia with coastal guns, or surface to surface missiles, or lasers, or whatever it deemed appropriate for the level of defense they needed for their security.
The State of Kansas wouldn't need emplaced coastal guns, but might find tanks appropriate.
So now we are up to the National Guard.
Neither of these examples infringes on the Second Amendment, nor do they limit what the average citizen could own or use. However, individuals may find it difficult to pay for and maintain an ICBM, most states wouldn't want that expense either, but the fed has a national security intrest in protecting the whole country, so an ICBM is a legitimate weapon.
Your premise is to try and make owning a firearm absurd and foolish, but your only solution is that you have decided that only muskets should be owned.
Do you preclude Major Fergussons breech loading musket? how about the air rifle carried by Lewis and Clark on the Corps of Discovery expedition?
Would multibarreled black powder weapons be excluded? how about black powder revolvers? What calibers are approved by you? What propellants would meet your specific standards.
Bring something to the table besides a belittling attitude please.
You think you are making an intellectually profound statement to show how ridiculous it is for anyone to own the means to protect themselves or exercise their Constitutional rights by making statements like "if you can own a grenade launcher, why not a nerve gas?"
You seek to make the desire of people to protect themselves and exercise their Constitutional rights seem inferior to your own enlightened point of view.
Your arguments are not witty, simply specious without reason or logic.
If you were to push the envelope and actually attempt to make reasoned arguments, to use logic and provide real alternatives, it would be enjoyable to debate.
However your psych 101 attempts to portray the people who support the Constitution and Second Amendment as inferior to you are merely the internet version of "I know you are but what am I" prepubesent schoolyard garbage that fails to make any substanitive comments on the issue and do not promote your reasoning as anything adolesent at best.
Your point of view is apparent. Your logic and arguments are severly lacking.
Bravo. What a very long personal attack. Why so defensive? You could have just said "I don't like you because you are a meany and you make me feel stupid." That was never my intent.
I am aware of how scotus has ruled on gun regulations. Are they right or is it just a realists way of dealing with the problem of regulations of things never contemplated in the constitution.
Scalia uses an originalists analysis of the constitution. He looks to see what was taking place at the time the constitution was written. All they had then was muskets. Thoughts. You can write personal attacks if you want. They are funny.
You are reading way more into it than I intended. Maybe you just have some unresolved issues that you need to talk to someone about.
The Constitution does not define/describe/list any specific weapon such as musket, rifle, blunderbuss etc.
Because they are not specifically designated, it would fall under the jurisdicition of the state if they formed a militia that was armed with for instance cannons or explosives.
Without specific regulation included in the Bill of Rights limiting weapons, it then falls upon the states to regulate without removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, laws such as the 1930s laws and the 1968 laws as passed by the congress did not ban or remove the right to keep and bear arms, but did limit for instance sending guns through the mail.
An Individual wants to protect their home and family, hunt, shoot recreationally. A firearm is a logical choice. It is inexpensive, easy to use, and the models and calibers are in varieties wide enough to encompass just about anybodies wants or desires.
Yet the Constitution does not limit them to a simple side arm or firearm, so in many states it is completely legal to own a machine gun up to and including a Browning 50 Cal if they want.
The states don't prohibit it, so while the fed requires it to be registered, nothing says that an indivdual cannot own that weapon.
If a neighborhood watch bands together and decides for their security, an armored car with gun mounts for grenade launchers and automatic weapons is required. The City could authorize that if it saw a need, and the individuals banding together in a form of militia could legally own that equipment.
Now, if the State of Oregon for instance decided that protection of their shoreline was necessary, and a militia of citizens were organized for that purpose, the state could arm that militia with coastal guns, or surface to surface missiles, or lasers, or whatever it deemed appropriate for the level of defense they needed for their security.
The State of Kansas wouldn't need emplaced coastal guns, but might find tanks appropriate.
So now we are up to the National Guard.
Neither of these examples infringes on the Second Amendment, nor do they limit what the average citizen could own or use. However, individuals may find it difficult to pay for and maintain an ICBM, most states wouldn't want that expense either, but the fed has a national security intrest in protecting the whole country, so an ICBM is a legitimate weapon.
Your premise is to try and make owning a firearm absurd and foolish, but your only solution is that you have decided that only muskets should be owned.
Do you preclude Major Fergussons breech loading musket? how about the air rifle carried by Lewis and Clark on the Corps of Discovery expedition?
Would multibarreled black powder weapons be excluded? how about black powder revolvers? What calibers are approved by you? What propellants would meet your specific standards.
Bring something to the table besides a belittling attitude please.
You think you are making an intellectually profound statement to show how ridiculous it is for anyone to own the means to protect themselves or exercise their Constitutional rights by making statements like "if you can own a grenade launcher, why not a nerve gas?"
You seek to make the desire of people to protect themselves and exercise their Constitutional rights seem inferior to your own enlightened point of view.
Your arguments are not witty, simply specious without reason or logic.
If you were to push the envelope and actually attempt to make reasoned arguments, to use logic and provide real alternatives, it would be enjoyable to debate.
However your psych 101 attempts to portray the people who support the Constitution and Second Amendment as inferior to you are merely the internet version of "I know you are but what am I" prepubesent schoolyard garbage that fails to make any substanitive comments on the issue and do not promote your reasoning as anything adolesent at best.
Your point of view is apparent. Your logic and arguments are severly lacking.
Can't Rep You for that scalding, but i would if i could.
Bravo. What a very long personal attack. Why so defensive? You could have just said "I don't like you because you are a meany and you make me feel stupid." That was never my intent.
I am aware of how scotus has ruled on gun regulations. Are they right or is it just a realists way of dealing with the problem of regulations of things never contemplated in the constitution.
Scalia uses an originalists analysis of the constitution. He looks to see what was taking place at the time the constitution was written. All they had then was muskets. Thoughts. You can write personal attacks if you want. They are funny.
You are reading way more into it than I intended.
You have no idea of who had what when ever... There have been repeating fire arms since the 14th century.
There have been many forms of grenades, bombs and artillery since then too.
Only 15 miles? That seems a tad short to me.... Trust me if i have nukes i can use them any place i want...
Depends on the amount used, but a standard as what most deployments use is a 5 mile instant kill zone (extreme heat), the 10 mile area is up to around 400 mph winds , after that it is something like 200 mph up to around 15 miles where it degrades over distance.
Then... well, after that you should be watching weather patterns for fallout (which is the real killer in such a deployment, it is the gift that keeps on giving). Point is, nobody in their reasonable mind would see using such as viable and I don't think you could use one with an RPG without killing yourself (maybe with a self guided system and an extended fuel system).
The "claims" of complete destruction concerning nukes is a bit over exaggerated. Look up some of the fan sites on survival from them, you would be surprised at how they aren't what Hollywood likes to claim. Don't get me wrong, extremely nasty, but not the "world killer" that is often used in the film industry.
For me, I see no reasonable means of using them. If you are trying to take out a certain group, they kill more than is required in blast alone and kill more than intended due to the after effects.
Honestly, they are a completely irresponsible weapon, more suited to nut jobs and maniacs (aside from the MAD principal).
Any individual who wanted to own one I would be seriously considering as mentally unstable as there are far better weapons that achieve exactly the same level of force in terms destruction, yet are more focused in their control and don't carry indiscriminate after effects.
Point is, if you have the money to afford making a nuke, chances are, you really are only interested in killing people indiscriminately.
Depends on the amount used, but a standard as what most deployments use is a 5 mile instant kill zone (extreme heat), the 10 mile area is up to around 400 mph winds , after that it is something like 200 mph up to around 15 miles where it degrades over distance.
Then... well, after that you should be watching weather patterns for fallout (which is the real killer in such a deployment, it is the gift that keeps on giving). Point is, nobody in their reasonable mind would see using such as viable and I don't think you could use one with an RPG without killing yourself (maybe with a self guided system and an extended fuel system).
The "claims" of complete destruction concerning nukes is a bit over exaggerated. Look up some of the fan sites on survival from them, you would be surprised at how they aren't what Hollywood likes to claim. Don't get me wrong, extremely nasty, but not the "world killer" that is often used in the film industry.
For me, I see no reasonable means of using them. If you are trying to take out a certain group, they kill more than is required in blast alone and kill more than intended due to the after effects.
Honestly, they are a completely irresponsible weapon, more suited to nuts and maniacs (aside from the MAD principal).
Any individual who wanted to own one I would be seriously considering as mentally unstable as there are far better weapons that achieve exactly the same level of force in terms destruction, yet are more focused in their control and don't carry indiscriminate after effects.
Point is, if you have the money to afford making a nuke, chances are, you really are only interested in killing people indiscriminately.
So if I use a RPG on Deer I should expect to be up wind of that deer, and even a miss will render the deer cooked on the hoof huh? I guess I don't even need to see the deer, just search after destroy should do it.
You have no idea of who had what when ever... There have been repeating fire arms since the 14th century.
There have been many forms of grenades, bombs and artillery since then too.
And you don't know Jack....
I know lots of Jacks. Nice guys all of them. Do you have a cite for the weapons that the framers would have access to at the time the constitution was written. That would be interesting.
So if I use a RPG on Deer I should expect to be up wind of that deer, and even a miss will render the deer cooked on the hoof huh? I guess I don't even need to see the deer, just search after destroy should do it.
*chuckle*
Cooked? Try incinerated. Go ahead and search, in seconds being within the kill zone would render you dead.
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.
