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.
Its all the Marxist knows. Attack straw man arguments.
Yep, these leftist want to have a common sense conversation, however explosives, nuclear bombs, fully loaded combat jets, blah blah blah.....continue to be brought up.
Yea, all of those are common sense conversational pieces.......
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?
WMDs- that is about it.
I have a M2 halftrack with a .30cal Browning. I would really like a tank with an operational cannon, but they are illegal. You can buy used tanks, but cannot legally own and shoot the ordinance (the cannon should be disabled as well), so what is the point? Mortars would be fun too, but off course, are illegal as well.
Citizens should be able to own weapons that are on par with those conventional weapons used by the military.
And enforcing existing laws. What good will laws do if they're not enforced?
One example is the so-called Three Strikes and You're Out law the Clinton administration came up with in the 1990s, which makes me wonder if such a law is really being enforced. Many criminals will do their time in jail/prison and when they get out, they'll commit more serious crimes, and more restrictive gun laws will not prevent them from getting weapons. Without getting into too many details, as far as I'm concerned, a violent criminal, or a any person who has the potential to become a violent criminal, after they commit 1 or 2 crimes, belongs in prison, and nowhere else.
You don't think meaning you don't know for certain because it is not in the constitution. You are applying your reasoning to figure out what they meant. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the weapons a person may own.
Other than the definition of arms as we assume it is now. As to if that definition is the same now, well, you would have to go back and contextually establish its meaning.
If we go by arms as Hooka mentioned, it means "arms" can not be infringed, but does not state anything about weapons that are not "arms".
That is the issue, what does "arms" really mean?
It could mean everything. For instance, I looked up the meaning of "arms" through an etymology dictionary and it referred to the 1930 Arms race of naval build ups.
So if we take that understanding, it would appear the restriction is not necessarily what Hoooka described it as. Though we won't know for sure until we go back closer to the time.
Hotair here is a reasonable restriction. You can't carry a gun into a prison. Don't tell me what kind of gun or magazine I can own in my home, or shoot at the range.
So just so that I understand. You don't believe that the constitution gives everyone the right to carry whatever weapon they want to wherever they want to, when they want to? Is that right? You believe you can restrict that to some degree? As long as the restriction is reasonable? So you are not making the argument that the 2nd amendment does not allow for restrictions?
Yep, these leftist want to have a common sense conversation, however explosives, nuclear bombs, fully loaded combat jets, blah blah blah.....continue to be brought up.
Yea, all of those are common sense conversational pieces.......
See post 52 after yours. What were you saying about common sense and liberals?
For the Gun people: What weapons should a citizen NOT have the right to own?
I'll tell Yall' what. I went to a Gun Show a few weeks ago, and
there were a lot of friendly happy polite people there. I did not
hear a harsh word in two hours.
"Dangerous? And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. "
- Gandalf
So just so that I understand. You don't believe that the constitution gives everyone the right to carry whatever weapon they want to wherever they want to, when they want to? Is that right? You believe you can restrict that to some degree? As long as the restriction is reasonable? So you are not making the argument that the 2nd amendment does not allow for restrictions?
I have never been in the camp that absolutely no regulation can be administered under the constitution. Just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and use the first to hide behind.
But that said, I don't believe that the Gov. has the right to ban any firearms. They can regulate them to some extent but to ban a magazine or semi auto or pistol due to some belief that they shoot too fast for a citizen to poses is Marxist and wrong. I also believe as a business owner you can say I don't allow people who have guns on them to come into my store. I also have the right not to come into that store and purchase from you.
My question is, what is the size and rate of fire limit for a projectile based weapon (aka, a gun)?
Would something like this be too big?
?
Are you seriously asking this stupid question? I hope your being sarcastic. Its not an arm. Its artillery.
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.
?
For the Gun people: What weapons should a citizen NOT have the right to own?
