CrescentFresh
New Member
so people with nunchucks can be taken out with a high capacity ar?
How many innocent lives are your guns worth?
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
By what logic do you come to that conclusion? T
woody333333
Well-Known Member
back then capacity was one
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
in counterpoint, the second amendment of the constitution was drafted to enshrine that Right specifically and to preserve it against encroachment by any future do-gooder or despot who might try to disarm the populace.
the second amendment was not created in a vacuum, but with a long history of disarmament leading to despotism.
when the Scottish Parliament signed the Act of Union in 1707 it was followed by several uprisings. these Jacobite rebellions resulted in the Disarmament Act of 1747, which made posessing any weapon (even knives) a criminal act. shortly thereafter, scotland was subjected to "The Highland Clearances" which would today be described as "Ethnic Cleansing" where poor folks were driven off their farms, and into "labour villages" where they were allowed to choose either slave wages harvesting kelp or starvation.
in 1776, the founders well knew the price paid by the nwo helpless scots highlanders for defending their freedom, and took steps to ensure such a thing could not happen in their new nations.
the right to Keep (own) and bear (possess on your person) arms (weapons of ANY description) were crafted carefully with a justification clause, so future generations would know WHY it was there, and absolutely unambiguous language regarding what infringements were permitted (NONE).
even the case of US v Miller touted as proving the constitutionality of gun bans says nothing of the sort.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158." ~http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
or, in non-lawyer speak:
sawed off shotguns are weapons used for crime. they serve no rational purpose outside crime as they are too inaccurate for hunting, to random for self defense, dangerous to everyone around them, and NOT any part of the military arsenal.
however, the fully automatic and burst fire capable M16 and CAR 15 (with 20 30 and 50 round mags...)are regular issue weapons in the "organized militia" (the army), the navy and the marine corps, and as such would therefore be considered as having a use in militia service, and thus WOULD be covered by the second amendment's protections.
Lawyered.
on a more direct and less legailistic note, as the second amendment enshrines a specific right to keep (own) and bear (carry about on one's person) arms (weapons of every description), demanding that anyone not otherwise encumbered (felons, crazy people, the clinically retarded etc...) would be an infringement of that right, reducing it to a mere privilege which could be taken away with a few minor changes to the laws you propose.
it doesnt take much imagination to envision a future dingbat congress riding high on the emotional tidal wave of... whatever... who might decide that the requirements to own arms should be set MUCH higher, so high as to be unattainable by anyone.
nor does it take much imagination to envision a future despot declaring by executive order that the requirements to own arms are now "membership in the ruling party" just before he declares himself El Presidente For Life. after all, thats what Fidel Castro did...
CrescentFresh
New Member
and they still didn't see any reason to limit it past that. if it was a problem they would of mentioned it
Mr. Blonde
Member
10 children... per gun... i have a lot of guns!
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
"State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria?"
The feds on both counts
" Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another."
Again, the feds. There would have to be uniformity in the law, which could not be accomplished if left up to the individual states.
"Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement."
Honestly, I don't care. A gun is intended to kill, and should be treated with a level of seriousness and professionalism. As a society we have no issue with taking training to drive a car, so how is owning and operating a gun any less important?
"On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems."
I conceded the slippery slope here, but the importance of this is to establish lawful ownership of the gun in order to punish the "bad guy". There would be no way of knowing that a gun is in the wrong hands without a registration process of some sort.
"Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people."
My focus is not on preventing Adam Lanza type incidents. I don't feel that there are any practical measures to prevent something like that. If a nutter is set on shooting up a school, no law on earth will stop that.
"Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not"
A persons eligibility will be based upon past behavior. Would you not agree that a person convicted of armed robbery, or rape, or murder, should not be permitted to own a firearm? There would be no "body of people". There would be clear-cut criteria (not unlike what we already have) set forth.
Mr. Blonde
Member
Guns don't kill people... ignorance does
woody333333
Well-Known Member
DrKynes.......... a sawed off shotgun would work great for snakes
Mr. Blonde
Member
so would a stick
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A gun can be used to defend oneself or to initiate aggression. Would you be in favor of disarming those that use guns to jail people for ingesting plant matter of their choice?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
this was not two ninjas dueling on the cliffs above a storm tossed sea with dramatic music playing.
this was a straight up MDK with a blunt object.
it could have been a thrown brick, a heavy sack beating, a set of brass knuckles (also more illegal than nuclear weapons) or the dreaded "Sawed Off Nunchuk", a goddamned stick.
dead is dead, either by rifle shot, pistol ball, cannonade, sabre slash, footman's lance, bodkin arrow, slingstone, club, stone tipped spear or martian death ray.
banning guns doesnt prevent murder, it just makes murder into a contact sport for those who cannot figure out the use of a longbow.
conversely, in the situation you seem to prefer, i would have the advantage, as my size and strength will ensure i am unchallenged when i decide to go on my (some would say inevitable) killing rampage.
however thanks to the glorious second amendment, a sickly little old lady with a colt pony .380 auto can end my flail-wielding orgy of destruction with a single well placed shot.
guns are not tools of crime, they are tools which serve the user in crime or defense of liberty.
woody333333
Well-Known Member
a stick would be a very poor choice
zambonic
Well-Known Member
Maybe you should pose this question to the Jews in Germany during Hitlers rein, or the Russian people during Stalins time...need I go on?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Hmm, and here I thought it was the bullets.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I see your point, but so long as we have 300+ million guns out there, I feel that the police need to be armed.... even with knowing how they abuse their power.
canndo
Well-Known Member
The consequences of a dead document.
canndo
Well-Known Member
What a pity that guns can't kill ignorance.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no it does not.
a regular shotgun is even dangerous when used on snakes unless youre a "Snake Sniper shooting froom 50+ yards...
pellets bounce. if you see a snake coiling up at your feet and shoot at it with a sawed off shotgun, then youll blow your own foot off, or ricochet pellets will perforate you.
if the snake is close enough to be a hazard, it's too damned close for a sawed off, if it's menacing somebody else, THEY are too damned close to the snake for a sawed off.
sawed of shotguns are wildly inaccurate, and essentially only useful as a threat to everybody in that bank you are robbing.
if youre worried about snakes, pack a .22 loaded with a shotshell round full of dove shot. thats what .22's are for.