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.
There should always be checks and balances with power. There are very few people that I trust, that does not mean that I am scared of my own shadow and blame the govt. for everything that goes wrong.
I blame them for what they do wrong and their failures...
I should have the right to own a post May 19th 1986 Machine Gun, yet I can not because of a moronic law passed by emotionalistic morons..
Thats a stupid generalization that has no base, that would be like me saying all conservatives are redneck idiots. Very few liberals want to ban all guns. Most just want common sense, something most conservatives lack, in the gun debate.
We know where you are coming from, trailmix.
Read the Constitution, specifically the 2A, and understand there can be no ban.
How about the NPS closes down the trails you hike? They ban access to all public lands. You are shot on sight if seen there. Common sense, right? It's coming.
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.
Even a liberal loon would rather have a standard AR-15 if trying to protect one's family from three malcontents intent on inflicting harm to you. Perhaps you would lay the rifle down and let them rape you, your wife and kids before beating you to death.
Oops...you laid the gun down when you could have ended it before it happened. Funny how an inanimate object could change events. You wouldn't even have to kill one. Fire off a couple of shots and they should get the message.
Is the big bad defense weapon so awful when viewed in that light?
That 2 minute musket doesn't look too appealing either, does it?
Those who are sarcastically suggesting that the 2A protects a crew served tank or nuclear missile need to look up the definition of "arms" in the context of the 18th century. Arms were considered personal weapons that one would bring in to battle with them. That obviously excludes all crew served type weaponry.
Those who are sarcastically suggesting that the 2A protects a crew served tank or nuclear missile need to look up the definition of "arms" in the context of the 18th century. Arms were considered personal weapons that one would bring in to battle with them. That obviously excludes all crew served type weaponry.
Sorry gotta disagree with that...
During the English Civil War the vast propensity of field artillery was privately owned, and were to all intents and purposes personal arms (the personal armaments of the mercenaries who used them, Dutch and German mainly).
Did the meaning change between 1651 and 1776? Or did the meaning change from 1776 to current? Which is more likely roughly 120 years, or roughly 240 years, it's a 66% chance it changed since 1776 and a 33% chance prior.
Well lets look shall we...
War of 1812, letters of Marque and reprisal were issued by congress to American Privateers, to attack, and capture supplies intended for the British. How is a privateer going to attack and capture supplies if they don't own cannon? If the 2nd Amendment did not protect cannon, then there would be no privateers to issue letters of Marque and reprisal to (certainly not American Privateers). Indeed the ships were indeed crew served weapons platforms with crew served arms (cannon and mortar), and also personal arms (rifles, muskets, pistols, cutlasses, and belaying pins).
So if your argument is correct, then how did this happen during the War of 1812?
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?
Should you be allowed to own a fully operational brain? Yes
Do you? Obviously not.
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?
Only WMDs
Otherwise, a citizen should be able to own all conventional weapons available to them. As an owner of a military halftrack, I can tell you that most "interesting" military devices are VERY EXPENSIVE and somewhat impractical unless you have a considerable amount of land. One can secure armored vehicles for "reasonable" prices, but tanks are very expensive. Further, the maintenance of such equipment requires a little more than your standard auto mechanic or aviation mechanic. Thus the ownership of most "heavy ordinance" is prohibitively expensive.
Automatic weapons are expensive only due the ban. If the ban was lifted, the price would fall. Anyone who has fired full auto weapons will agree that they are fairly useless "lead throwers", as they walk off target after about three rounds. If one was to do maximum "urban damage" one would use the fully legal Saiga 12g shotguns with the 24 round drums and a slide fire stock. In this manner, one has a fully automatic shotgun. Again, the latter is perfectly legal while full auto firearms are not.
Arms is considered any device that shoots a projectile that can be carried and and fired by a single person and does not explode on impact or detonate in some fashion.
I am interested in where this definition comes from. Is this something written into law after 1791, (in which case the law is unconstitutional) ?
Last edited by Bideshi; 06-11-2014 at 08:05 AM..
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.
Very few liberals want to ban all guns. Most just want common sense, something most conservatives lack, in the gun debate.
