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.
Since banning guns will insure that only criminals have them, can someone provide the myriad examples of criminals using automatic weapons in the shootings that have been in the news over the last few years? Surely there must be many, given that laws prohibiting the ownership of these weapons does nothing.
You continue to tap-dance around the OP's basic question, which isn't contingent on "availability". Namely, what weapons should a citizen NOT have the right to own?
BTW, did you ever notice how all the tough-talking gun nuts & RWNJ's online, always sound like they've watched too many Dirty Harry movies!
Though living with all that fear, guess it's no wonder they feel so naked without a gun (or a bazooka as their ''need'' may be...)!
I answered the question just fine. weapons of the individual soldier s what we are supposed to have. too bad the feds wont let me own grenades without special permission.
Well what if having a cannister of VX nerve agent that could be used to wipe out a whole city suited me, why can't I have that. There is nothing in the constitution that says that I can't own that. It is certainly a weapon and in the arms race...nerve agents are definitely considered part of it. The constitution says I can own arms so isn't it my constitutional right to have a weapon of mass destruction?
Unfortunately in 1790 when they drafted the 2nd Ammendment Vx and the G-class Nerve Agents (Sarin, Soman and Tabun) even simple chemical weapons like Chlorine or Phosgen gas where at least 100 years in the future. I am sure the demigods who founded the American Republic would have debated the wisdom of making it a right of free men to posess them.
Well if my neighborhood started a militia, I am sure we could come up with money for a Russian fighter jet fully armed.
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 guess maybe they had cannons too. Sure you can own a cannon as well. Has to be the same type that was available then.
And you should be able to own the same kind of transportation that was available at the time.. A horse or a mule...That would save more lives than banning every gun in the country..
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.
I like what you said so I don't have much to comment on, I just wanted to make one point. A few sentences within your post gave me the impression that you felt the 2nd involved forming a militia. It's not - there was a separate Militia Act regarding that. The 2nd's mention of a militia is not about arming a militia, it is about regulating the militia. And "regulated" here does not mean "laws pertaining to how the militia is to be armed". It's saying that keeping the militia well regulated is necessary to maintain freedom, so the armed militia should be balanced by an armed populace so that it doesn't get out of control, ie doesn't get "unregulated". Well regulated was a term used in the colonial era to mean properly under control, as in "I try to keep my emotions well regulated when I get angry". The use of well-regulated to mean administered under a good set of operating guidelines is a more modern use of the term. I may have misinterpreted what you said - and it really doesn't affect your overall point anyway. Just thought I'd mention it.
Unfortunately in 1790 when they drafted the 2nd Ammendment Vx and the G-class Nerve Agents (Sarin, Soman and Tabun) even simple chemical weapons like Chlorine or Phosgen gas where at least 100 years in the future. I am sure the demigods who founded the American Republic would have debated the wisdom of making it a right of free men to posess them.
well, look at some of the inventions of the time. multiple shot revolving muskets capable of firing just as the gatling gun does were available.
people are too stupid or lazy to look for them.
in the 50s the military experimented with a little device called a thermonuclear grenade. it was a bit larger than a standard rpg round and it had a kill radius of 200 meters. the distance you would need to fire the round and be safe is just over a mile, though you might have issues later in life due to radiation fallout depending on wind direction. our military also had low yield atomic artillery shells as well with a slightly higher kill radius, again ultimately they were also a project canceled.
Little battlefield nukes had a problem that could not be solved. The problem was how to limit the conflict once the the nuclear threshold has been crossed. Use the little nukes and the other side uses what theater weapons that it has to strike you positions and rear bases . You of course respond in kind and draw a escalatory response from the other side followed by what are called first strikes against the enemy nation. After communications command and control start to breakdown your only choice is a massive retailation (i.e. use it or lose it) and unfortunately this is also the choice of the enemy. The result is your nation is a pile of radioactive ashes and its people are dead and so is the enemy all of this for a some small clash that no one thought was worth the cost of a single soldier on either side. The problem is you put this decision in the hads of a Private First class or a 90 day wonder of a 2nd Lt. Think about it.
what a waste. prohibition laws didn't eliminate alcohol, drug laws don't eliminate drugs and gun laws will not eliminate illegal use of guns. Wake up, government can not legislate decency any more than the TSA could stop an air tragedy. Only people can prevent this abuse. Instead of flapping our gums at gun laws we should be looking at the use of our billions of dollars in aid and lobbyist and develop a system to protect our children. Charge the nra to support the development of non lethal weapons to deploy in our schools. pass laws protecting the school from lawsuits by some idiot who got disabled or even killed by these weapons. there are solutions ...look for them....
WE LOSE OUR FREEDOMS A SMALL PIECE AT A TIME, UNTIL WE ARE SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD THAT RECOUPING THEM IS IMPOSSIBLE. IN TODAYS WORLD MOST OF OUR COUNTRY'S FOUNDERS WOULD BE IN JAIL.
what a waste. prohibition laws didn't eliminate alcohol, drug laws don't eliminate drugs and gun laws will not eliminate illegal use of guns. Wake up, government can not legislate decency any more than the TSA could stop an air tragedy. Only people can prevent this abuse. Instead of flapping our gums at gun laws we should be looking at the use of our billions of dollars in aid and lobbyist and develop a system to protect our children. Charge the nra to support the development of non lethal weapons to deploy in our schools. pass laws protecting the school from lawsuits by some idiot who got disabled or even killed by these weapons. there are solutions ...look for them....
WE LOSE OUR FREEDOMS A SMALL PIECE AT A TIME, UNTIL WE ARE SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD THAT RECOUPING THEM IS IMPOSSIBLE. IN TODAYS WORLD MOST OF OUR COUNTRY'S FOUNDERS WOULD BE IN JAIL.
Why has gun control against automatic weapons been successful?
Since banning guns will insure that only criminals have them, can someone provide the myriad examples of criminals using automatic weapons in the shootings that have been in the news over the last few years? Surely there must be many, given that laws prohibiting the ownership of these weapons does nothing.
Your obvious conflation of "banning all guns" with "banning assault rifles" is a transparent failure of logic. If all people with the last name Smith like apples and John likes apples, is John's last name Smith? No, not necessarily. People with other last names could also like apples. If you ban all guns only criminals will have guns is a truism but it doesn't lead to a ban of specific guns meaning that criminals will or won't have those guns. Nor if they have them did they necessarily use them. Nor if they used them is there necessarily a myriad of of examples available on the web.
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.
