*JPP bomb thrown*

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't think civilians should always have military level technology.

The probably with the MAD theory is that it assumes all the possessors of the weapons are rational actors. Some won't be and the probability of something catastrophic happening, and happening often, approaches one as the amount of people owning these ultra-destructive weapons increases.

 

[Cancel3]

and I would suggest that the "arms" that I have a right to own include anything that is defined as an "arm", therefore. Who interprets what that word "arms" means if not the body politic or the courts?

If you want to try and term flamethrowers, rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons as "legs" instead of arms, thereby removing them from the list, feel free to try it.

I don't think that will fly in court.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Irrelevant. Was there a comparable weapon to a full automatic assault rifle in 1787? Of course not.

A rocket launcher is an "arm". I certainly could use it to defend my home and that defense does not need to be against an individual but any number of individuals... members of a foreign invading army, for example. A satchel nuke would do well in that scenario as well.

do you really think you make an effective argument using silly assed illogical statements?

 

[Cancel3]

The biggest problem is that a portion of our population wants to pass more and more laws to make them feel safer.

But living in a free society is never safe. With every law that is passed to protect we lose another bit of freedom.

In some cases, its worth it. I will give up my freedom to package and sell meats or vegetables in order to protect us against unsanitary food processing.

But removing guns from the population does not make us safer. No study has ever shown that it does. And if they are not taking them away to make us safer, why are they taking them away?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The biggest problem is that a portion of our population wants to pass more and more laws to make them feel safer.

But living in a free society is never safe. With every law that is passed to protect we lose another bit of freedom.

In some cases, its worth it. I will give up my freedom to package and sell meats or vegetables in order to protect us against unsanitary food processing.

But removing guns from the population does not make us safer. No study has ever shown that it does. And if they are not taking them away to make us safer, why are they taking them away?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

This site has plenty of them. It pretty much depends on the organization you're referencing.

 

[maineman]

If you want to try and term flamethrowers, rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons as "legs" instead of arms, thereby removing them from the list, feel free to try it.

I don't think that will fly in court.

and if you want to try to get american gun control laws loosened to the point where such weapons are perfectly OK for private citizens to own and bear, have at it.

my point is: they ARE all arms, and the constitution would suggest that we all have a right to have them... and the courts and society have interpreted the constitution to the point where we do not have that right.... a line was drawn and it will be redrawn back and forth on into the future. that's how our country works.

 

[Damocles]

The previous "Assault Weapons Ban" was a joke. It did two things. First, it provided a solution to a problem that didn't exists. And second, it provided a minor inconvenience to people wanting certain semi-automatic weapons.


Prior to the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

During the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

After the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.




So what was accomplished? It created more paperwork for an industry that is already deluged with it. It created a "feel good" piece of legislation that actually did nothing. And it limited access to certain weapons and accessories for law abiding citizens.

Its a waste of time.

It was cosmetic, two rifles that shot the same ammunition at the same pace (how quickly one can fire rapidly), one would be banned because of how the stock was formed. It was a dumb law.

 

[Chapdog]

hes got more important things to be working on then wedge issues as Adam mentions. Start gun grabbing and he will lose 15-20% approval guaranteed.

 

[DamnYankee]

Irrelevant. Was there a comparable weapon to a full automatic assault rifle in 1787? Of course not.

A rocket launcher is an "arm". I certainly could use it to defend my home and that defense does not need to be against an individual but any number of individuals... members of a foreign invading army, for example. A satchel nuke would do well in that scenario as well.

The 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founder's in their use of the word "Arms" isn't irrelevant.

Based on the remainder of your post, any reasonable person can see that you have gone off the deep end in this discussion.

 

[maineman]

The 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founder's in their use of the word "Arms" isn't irrelevant.

Based on the remainder of your post, any reasonable person can see that you have gone off the deep end in this discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Arms are arms. I have a right to bear them, according to YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I would suggest that courts have been interpreting the wording of that amendment - as well as the wording of every other sentence of the constitution since the time it was drafted. If courts want to draw the line at rocket launchers, they would have done so... if they were concerned about drawing the line at assault weapons, my guess is that they would have said so prior to the last ban being lifted.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I see nothing there that would prevent a citizen from having a rocket launcher mounted on his front porch to repel home invaders.

Isn't it all about society drawing a line somewhere?

Let people have rocket launchers.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

so what? are you saying that, with every advance of hand held weapons technology developed for our military, we should loosen gun control laws to allow civilians to have those same weapons?

yes

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Arms are arms. I have a right to bear them, according to YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I would suggest that courts have been interpreting the wording of that amendment - as well as the wording of every other sentence of the constitution since the time it was drafted. If courts want to draw the line at rocket launchers, they would have done so... if they were concerned about drawing the line at assault weapons, my guess is that they would have said so prior to the last ban being lifted.

I don't "feel" any way or the other. I am interpreting the 2A according to Hamilton's own words, which you or anyone else can't dispute. "Arms" are weapons carried by individual People to defend from or attack individuals. An N bomb or a rocket doesn't meet that definition, so in order to own one, you'll have to apply for, and obtain, a permit.

 

[RockX]

And people wondered why gun sales went though the roof after Comrade Obambi was elected. Stock up before you are not allowed to buy anymore.

 

[Immanuel]

Wise gun laws are what the public wants.

Assualt weapons are not going to be considered a nessesary part of wise.

You can have fun and protect yourself with one of the many other guns you are allowed to own.

Just try the Old " they are a comin' for our guns" and see what happens.

Okay, let me give it a try and see how liberals react:

OH MY GOD!!!! THEY ARE COMING FOR MY GUNS!!!!

{waits for the impending bombs to be thrown at me.}

flame throwers are not illegal. The right to bear arms includes all weapons commonly used by the militia. Militia weapons obviously include fully automatic weapons in use by our military forces. It is NOT your fucking place to decide for me.

This is why people with intelligence hate you fucking liberals. You FEEL that you can make decisions for others on their basic and fundamental rights because the freedom of others terrifies you. It's why you'll be among the targeted when the violence starts.

But, God help you if you stand up to defend the life of an unborn child. Then you are messing with their freedoms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where in here does it say you get the same arms the militia gets?

Where does it say, that you don't?

Immie

 

[meme]

Make sure you stock up on ammo also..they are going to attack that next to try to get around the gun bans.

 

[Jarod]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Arms are arms. I have a right to bear them, according to YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I would suggest that courts have been interpreting the wording of that amendment - as well as the wording of every other sentence of the constitution since the time it was drafted. If courts want to draw the line at rocket launchers, they would have done so... if they were concerned about drawing the line at assault weapons, my guess is that they would have said so prior to the last ban being lifted.

What about well regulated??? Shouldent the right to bear arms be well regulated?

 

[Jarod]

This is a strawman argument. Not only is there no possible way for a militia man able to carry the ICBM, its use in ground warfare is non-existent, therefore it should not even be considered. However, if you really want to pursue this in your misguided effort to prove that 'reasonable restrictions' apply, then yes, I think anyone that can afford the materials, storage, maintenance, and other aspects can own one.

So you agree that this is a limited right?

 

[Jarod]

A rocket launcher isn't an arm that a Person would defend himself against, or attack, an individual with. How many citizens had a comparable weapon in 1787?

Same argument for a modern day assault rifel.

 

[DamnYankee]

Same argument for a modern day assault rifel.

Correct, that it can't be regulated, since it is designed to be used by a person defending himself against or attacking individuals. If the weapon was designed to kill two or more at the same time, it wouldn't meet Hamilton's intent.