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 really are ignorant arent you? that or you are playing on tv. the airlines are a PRIVATE company, not a government, they can decide what gets on the planes and what doesnt.
as for mustard gas, where did i say its perfectly fine? all i said it that it is easy enough to make, i made no suggestion about its legality. same with nuclear weapons, or AAA. i just pointed out the difficulties of obtaining those types of weapons. and while we are on the subject, bombs and poison gasses come under a different regulation than firearms.
if you are living in the US, you are getting the benefit of others owning firearms.
The FAA regulates what you can and cannot bring on an airplane. Certain items are restricted by the government notwithstanding the fact that "bombs dont kill people, people kill people." Which is again the point.
You can try your mental gymnastics on someone feeble. Not working on me Mate.
Let me know when 1 single firearm can wipe out 10s of thousands in the blink of an eye and hundreds of thousands in months to come
Nukes are inherently far more dangerous and should not be obtainable by the general public for the reasons I had previously mentioned. The country would indeed have the ability to go rogue and start nuking itself and the world at the end users discretion.
Try again or just wave your white flag
Good, so we are in agreement that some items are inherently dangerous that their ownership by private citizens should be restricted/regulated. I think we can agree that nuclear weapons fall in the "restricted" category while a simple bow and arrow falls at the other end of the spectrum. Where do you draw the line (and why)?
The FAA regulates what you can and cannot bring on an airplane. Certain items are restricted by the government notwithstanding the fact that "bombs dont kill people, people kill people." Which is again the point.
There is no Constitutional guarantee of an airplane ride.
They can kick you off a plane for talking too loud or cursing; therefore, we might as well say people shouldn't have freedom of speech based on your logic, or lack there of.
According to news stories about the most recent shooter, nobody thought enough of his violence & craziness to ensure that any one of the incidents was reported properly to a national database. Wanna bet that this guy either alrady has multiple weapons or will be getting some one day? But, hey, it isn't time to talk about guns, right?
"A 22-year-old man was charged Tuesday with animal cruelty for allegedly stomping on a Hawthorne couple’s 9-pound white Maltese, killing the tiny pet with purple ears following a dispute over whether he could continue to live with their granddaughter at their residence."
In that case let the punishment fit the crime. He should be stomped to death accordingly or at least beaten to death with a baseball bat. I'd be more than happy to swing the bat.
Wanna' bet that he'll be out in a few years? Then he'll get a hold of a gun and go on a rampage. And you will say it's time to talk about guns. Pathetic.
So your argument is that the only thing preventing you from being enslaved by a dictator is the gun in your closet? I must be living in some kind of dreamworld then. I don't have a firearm in my house, yet I find myself with all sorts of liberties not afforded to those citizens who live in dictatorships. I haven't been sentenced to the gulag yet either, surprisingly.
In reality, the founding fathers obviously did not foresee the advances in technology. In their time, "arms" meant knives, swords, bow and arrow, and flintlock pistols and muskets with a rate of fire of 1-3 (inaccurate) shots per minute... I am sure even a modern crossbow is deadlier than what qualified as "arms" back in the late 18th century.
As a result, I am in favor of banning all advanced forms of weaponry (who knows, in 50 years we may have plutonium tipped arrows, so obviously those should be banned), and restricting "arms" to mean pistols for home self defense and hunting rifles for hunting. Imo this would follow the spirit of the original document.
"Banning all forms of advanced weaponry."? (sigh) I've covered this already, but apparently t hasn't been seen. Through our entire history as a nation the citizens have owned and used the same firearms as our military To list a few in ascending order, Charrleville Musket, Springfield rifle musket, Sharps breechloader and trapdoor Springfield, 30/40 Krag Jorgennson, 1903 A3 bolt action repeater, M1 Garand, M14 (in M1A trim) and now the AR platform in semi auto trim. Hand guns have followed this pattern as well most famously being the 1873 Colt SAA in 45 Colt and the 1911A1 45 ACP.
LMAO, how someone can honesly say that the people who wrote the 2A into our Bill of Rights did not foresee advances in technology is quite beyond me. That this was clearly foreseen has been why the accepted practice be that the citizenry be armed with the same basic infantry weapon being used by our military at a given time. The CMP was originally created to ensure this remained in practice. This makes the notion of restricting citizens to pistols for home defense (I'm assuming you would see this limited to six shot revolvers) and rifles for hunting, again limited to bolt action 3-5 shot firearms perhaps(?) as being " in the spirit" of the 2A pretty ridiculous.
Hunting was sort of implied (but not listed) as a mandate for use of firearms since back then people went grocery shopping with their guns. Home defense was pretty much against Indian attack and our first century was a violent one with war at every turn making militia formation the prime intent. As things are in many places formation of militia is justified (and needed) to fight organized criminals. But instead municipalities where this is needed have disarmed their citizens and given governance of large areas over to those criminals and left the citizens helpless to do more than wait for the police to pick up the bodies of their neighbors and their children.
The true "spirit" of the 2A and the spirit, heritage and culture of our nation would see those criminals being hauled away in body bags. "Plutonium tiipped arrows?" Uh huh. A 10th of a gram of plutonium exposed to the open air in a room would kill everyone in that room within less than a week after exposure. Lets stay within the realm of reality shall we. Lets also realize that the AR 15 is not "advanced weaponry." The technology in it's function has been around for well over a century. Its "advanced" technology is merely ergonomic in nature.
It's action type is actually less "advanced" than that of our primary infantry weapon of WW2 and Korea. The M1 Garand. The opinions put into this post sound like something one would hear in a firearms issue speech by Dianne Feinstein and are as equally and woefully undereducated and informed about firearms and American history. Sorry, need to try again.
Good, so we are in agreement that some items are inherently dangerous that their ownership by private citizens should be restricted/regulated. I think we can agree that nuclear weapons fall in the "restricted" category while a simple bow and arrow falls at the other end of the spectrum. Where do you draw the line (and why)?
If you ever took the time to read the Supreme Court decision which confirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms not related to service in a militia which applies to weapons that are in "common use". You would see that nuclear weapons, explosive devices, RPG's, grenades, bazooka's, tanks, fighter planes etc. are not in "common use" by individual citizens. In fact Justice Scalia who wrote in the concurring opinion stated that it applies only to weapons that can be hand held. Even though grenades, RPG's and bazooka's can be hand held they are not in "common use". So why do you continue to perpetuate this ridiculous argument?
Of course in the event of an all out civil war all bets would be off as there would be no laws. Only two warring factions.
Quote:
Good, so we are in agreement that some items are inherently dangerous that their ownership by private citizens should be restricted/regulated. I think we can agree that nuclear weapons fall in the "restricted" category while a simple bow and arrow falls at the other end of the spectrum. Where do you draw the line (and why)?
The Supreme Court already drew the line as I've explained, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or why.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 11-08-2017 at 05:13 PM..
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.
A 10th of a gram of plutonium exposed to the open air in a room would kill everyone in that room within less than a week after exposure. Lets stay within the realm of reality shall we. Lets also realize that the AR 15 is not "advanced weaponry." The technology in it's function has been around for well over a century. Its "advanced" technology is merely ergonomic in nature. 
