We really should protect our first amendment rights to bear arms, all arms!
After all, why limit it to gunpowder-based arms? We should be allowed to store chemical and biological weapons in our house to throw at intruders if we want! Suitcase nukes for protecting our suburban towns from the urban hordes!
After all, the Constitution doesn’t define “arms” at all, so they are all fair game. I mean, they didn’t have 100 round capacity magazines for weapons that could fire five bullets a second back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, but we’re allowed to have them! ALL ARMS MUST BE LEGAL TO CARRY IN A CHURCH OR BAR!
Unless you believe the idiocy above, that all arms should be legal, then you believe in arms control. And if you believe in arms control, then we should be able to discuss which arms are allowed and which are not.
Myself, I would limit non-sporting weapons (hunting, target, etc.) to 10 rounds and limit firing speed, require that they be locked separate from their ammo when not in use, and shooters be trained and licensed just like drivers and weapons be registered just like cars.
Unless you plan on armed insurrection or mass murder there are few rational reasons to have more firepower than listed above.
antiquetracman: If you read the whole thing, you will see the distinction, but the first amendment is what you want to destroy with the second – the right to believe, to communicate, and to join with others to do what the Constitution says.
“And you want them all dead because they don’t conform to your ideas. So, that makes your ideology as bad as theirs.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.No, we want them dead because they are fanatic murderers who kill everyone on sight because it’s so much fun. And they kill women and children with no remorse, because they want to be the boss of everyone they don’ kill. And they’re mean, too.
“Yup. About a third of firearms deaths are suicides. Another third are gangbanger POSs shooting each other. That leaves about 13,000 people killing others with firearms.”So 1/3 don’t count, 1/3 are subhuman leaving 1/3 killing others so it really isn’t a big deal (?). What is the point you are making?
And giving 9 year olds fully automatic Uzi has proven so good an idea. BTW: in the 18th century, “arms” included swords, and “biological” weapons had been used for centuries during siege warfare. (Even though they didn’t really understand what it was about dead livestock in wells that was lethal, just like so many today don’t understand either chemical or biological weapons of “terror” that aren’t really all that effective.)
dtroutma: Chemical and biological weapons are effective – in fact too effective. They ignore all boundaries and given enough use and time, will travel all around the world and attack the user. Check out the August 2014 Scientific American article on how chemical exposure can piggyback on DNA without changing it, to the point of being detected five generations later.
Just another note? Our HOMICIDE BY GUN rate is roughly three times the number of our losses in years of war in Iraq, EVERY YEAR! “ISIS BOY” has it right.
tiredofit over 9 years ago
We really should protect our first amendment rights to bear arms, all arms!
After all, why limit it to gunpowder-based arms? We should be allowed to store chemical and biological weapons in our house to throw at intruders if we want! Suitcase nukes for protecting our suburban towns from the urban hordes!
After all, the Constitution doesn’t define “arms” at all, so they are all fair game. I mean, they didn’t have 100 round capacity magazines for weapons that could fire five bullets a second back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, but we’re allowed to have them! ALL ARMS MUST BE LEGAL TO CARRY IN A CHURCH OR BAR!
Unless you believe the idiocy above, that all arms should be legal, then you believe in arms control. And if you believe in arms control, then we should be able to discuss which arms are allowed and which are not.
Myself, I would limit non-sporting weapons (hunting, target, etc.) to 10 rounds and limit firing speed, require that they be locked separate from their ammo when not in use, and shooters be trained and licensed just like drivers and weapons be registered just like cars.
Unless you plan on armed insurrection or mass murder there are few rational reasons to have more firepower than listed above.
hippogriff over 9 years ago
antiquetracman: If you read the whole thing, you will see the distinction, but the first amendment is what you want to destroy with the second – the right to believe, to communicate, and to join with others to do what the Constitution says.
jonpeterson001 over 9 years ago
Antique, you aren’t doing your side any favors with that argument/name calling/radicalism (Every citizen is a member of the militia).
BTW, I am not a member of any militias.
goweeder over 9 years ago
“And you want them all dead because they don’t conform to your ideas. So, that makes your ideology as bad as theirs.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.No, we want them dead because they are fanatic murderers who kill everyone on sight because it’s so much fun. And they kill women and children with no remorse, because they want to be the boss of everyone they don’ kill. And they’re mean, too.
Odon Premium Member over 9 years ago
“Yup. About a third of firearms deaths are suicides. Another third are gangbanger POSs shooting each other. That leaves about 13,000 people killing others with firearms.”So 1/3 don’t count, 1/3 are subhuman leaving 1/3 killing others so it really isn’t a big deal (?). What is the point you are making?
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
And giving 9 year olds fully automatic Uzi has proven so good an idea. BTW: in the 18th century, “arms” included swords, and “biological” weapons had been used for centuries during siege warfare. (Even though they didn’t really understand what it was about dead livestock in wells that was lethal, just like so many today don’t understand either chemical or biological weapons of “terror” that aren’t really all that effective.)
hippogriff over 9 years ago
dtroutma: Chemical and biological weapons are effective – in fact too effective. They ignore all boundaries and given enough use and time, will travel all around the world and attack the user. Check out the August 2014 Scientific American article on how chemical exposure can piggyback on DNA without changing it, to the point of being detected five generations later.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
^My point is that any “weapon” just as likely to kill the user as the “enemy” isn’t very effective, but yes, I do see your point there as well.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
Just another note? Our HOMICIDE BY GUN rate is roughly three times the number of our losses in years of war in Iraq, EVERY YEAR! “ISIS BOY” has it right.