The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Kondor3]

Well, with that logic, we should not have any laws because supposedly the rich and famous can just circumvent them and that is not fair to the poor. Sorry, the country, society, needs laws regardless of what you think the rich are capable of.

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

 

[Kondor3]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

Once effective gun-control unfolds ( weapons classifications, licensing-by-class, registration, training, national databases, etc. ) the home-made stuff will have to be registered.

Once it's inspected for compliance with national gun-safety standards, that is, and, of course, if you're caught with an un-registered one, you get crucified at dawn.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

 

[Kondor3]

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

Actually, there will be no law passed that even will limit one to a customer. If the AR is put under a modified National Firearms Law, you will have to meet the same requirements to own it as any other restricted weapons and can own as many as you wish as long as you can afford to pay for it and stay within the law. The word "Ban" really doesn't exist.

 

[TNHarley]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

Cars do. Let's do all of this for getting a car. Or a knife, alcohol etc.
My point stands. Your attempt at pussification is dismissed.
Freedom isnt free.

Irrelevant. Nationwide gun control is coming... if not this next election, the one beyond, or the one beyond that... it's now inevitable... we've crossed the Rubicon.

Our rights get trampled on every day. I'm aware.
It doesn't help when people like you justify giving the govt more power either.

 

[rjs330]

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Not unless they hold a constitutional convention and change the Constitution. Maybe they will someday. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[rjs330]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

Well you could put an eye out!

 

[Rigby5]

Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

You cannot show this to be true.

you cant prove they haven't - can you.

Yes you easily can prove that no gun laws have ever done any good because it is impossible.
Essentially what you are trying to claim is that those intent on murder and a 20 years sentence, were deterred and made to change their mind by the 5 year sentence they risked by illegally obtaining the firearm they intended to use.
That is totally irrational to the point of insanity.

Look at the incredibly restrictive gun laws in England, and yet the IRA is suspected of still obtaining more than 20 tons of weapons, with more than half a million full auto rifles.

Australia passed an incredibly restrictive ban on semi automatic weapons in 1997 after the Port Arthur shooting, and yet there was only about 15% compliance in turning in the illegal weapons.

With these and more cases, we can prove the restrictive gun bans have not at all prevented firearm access, and therefore have not saved any lives at all. Those who really want them, can still easily get them, just as making drugs illegal did nothing to make them harder to get.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

What's sad is you have no idea how stupid this is.

 

[rjs330]

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

I think you need to do some history checking on this. Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it does. Just like the sentence structure shows you're not correct.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

What's sad is you have no idea how stupid this is.

How is it stupid? oh that's right it kills your anti-gun argument.
More and more people have started making their own firearms
They have no numbers

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In Japan, it is highly important to each person to not bring shame on his or her family.

You lose.

.

When you restrict and lower the amount of guns in any population, you decrease the chances for mass shootings and the use of such weapons in committing crimes.

Utter nonsense!
There are so few crazies that want to commit mass shootings, that you can never possibly stop them by imposing even the strictest of gun laws.
Someone who wants to commit a mass murder suicide does not care how much the weapons are going to cost.
They will get them, even if they have to have them made from scratch.
Gun control is just insanely stupid and irrational.
Can never possibly work, and never has.
For example, after the 1996 shootings in Port Arthur, Australia, the gun ban passed only had 15% compliance.
That means it totally and completely failed.
Only obsolete and nonfunctioning guns were turned in.
The number of semi automatic and illegal weapons remained identical to what it was.
Except that now Australia is estimated to have about 3 times as many illegal guns, because the price went up and it became more profitable to bother smuggling them in now.

Is death by firearms in Australia down from what it was? I think so. Mission accomplished.

This is baseless speculation; absent objective, documented evidence it's nothing more than subjective opinion, completely devoid of merit.

Death by firearms is down in Australia from where it once was. That's a FACT.

What about the death rate for other weapons?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

I think you need to do some history checking on this. Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it does. Just like the sentence structure shows you're not correct.

An Unregulated Militia is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes running around in pickle suits in the woods playing with guns.

 

[Rigby5]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. What part of that do you not understand?

Explain what YOU mean, because of course everyone knows the whole Bill of Rights is express and not implied?

And what is expressly said by the second amendment is that the federal government shall make not law over weapons because they are not to have any jurisdiction over them.

The Bill of Rights was created because the states did not trust a powerful federalist central force, so insisted on explicit restrictions to the federal government.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

That's exactly what he should do. Take a walk on the wild side with an air rifle and see if you make it back alive.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

I think you need to do some history checking on this. Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it does. Just like the sentence structure shows you're not correct.

An Unregulated Militia is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes running around in pickle suits in the woods playing with guns.

So you do know what "well-regulated" means?

A bunch of wannabes running around in pickle suits in the woods playing with guns would be the Air Force!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

WTF is a canon, you ignorant piece of human excrement? The word you are looking for is cannon!