What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Circe]

Pointing out that your arguments are stupid, idiotic, and specious, is not name calling.

Okay, I didn't really think it would work out. Good-bye. Another one bites the dust.......

 

[Circe]

So, which bit of the 2nd excludes nukes?

It doesn't exclude nukes. That's the thing. Or poison gas, or anthrax. These are all recognized and well-known military weaponry, so unless the Second excludes anything that requires a group for deployment ---- and I really don't see why it should exclude groups of soldiers working together, logically, then logically, everything used in war now should be legal for everyone to hold in their hot little hands at home.

Practically, that would be a problem even worse than the one we have now.

 

[Circe]

No, just pointing out the ridiculous nature of 'feel good' legislation that in no way deters criminals from obtaining that which you hope to ban.



Thanks for proving my point. Shall we ban propane tanks too?

No, why, because the Columbine kids were too stupid to test their bombs before they deployed them? That proves MY point, not yours: if people have to make something (as opposed to buying heavy weaponry ready-to-go from Walmart) MOST of them will be too stupid, like Harris and Klebold were at Columbine. Tremendous deterrent, stupidity and hard work. Another deterrent is the risk of discovery. That's why I didn't click on your link. You think people aren't watching and recording who goes to sites like that? Okay............

You still don't get it. ANYTHING criminals want, that they believe will help them carry out their crime, they will get. That's the point. Banning such items only put those hoping to defend themselves against these criminals at a disadvantage. Criminals aren't using grenades because they're not the right tool for the job. Same goes for good guys that wish to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with building vs buying.



Making your own grenades is so difficult that almost no one has; I've never heard of anyone committing a crime with them. Correct, because a grenade is not the best choice for criminals or good guys. They're good for subduing enemy soldiers in a machine gun nest, not for armed robberies, mass killings, or or home defense

If it were easy, people would. Wrong, again. They're not used because they're the wrong tool for the job, not because they're difficult to build or acquire or because they're illegal.


You hear of people downloading those infamous nuke instructions, but you never, never hear of someone carrying one they made onto the Mall in front of the Capitol, you know? If nukes were available in Walmart, however, that area would already be a radioactive ruin.

Now it's nuclear bombs? Good God, get a grip!



No, I can't agree with that. Consider drugs: making them illegal DOES make them a whole lot less easily consumed than if you could buy heroin and cocaine at your local liquor store. It just does. Wrong. Illegal drugs are EASIER to obtain than if they were sold by legitimate, and regulated, outlets. This was true of alcohol during prohibition as well. Booze, usually bad booze, was easy to obtain and harder so once legitimate business controlled it's distribution.You have to go to the ghetto, you have to deal with lowlifes, etc. Yea, right, can't get drugs in the suburbs...Same thing with weapons. Buying grenades and submachine guns and rocket launchers at Dick's Sporting Goods would lead to a WHOLE lot more people owning them than is the case now, since they are illegal. Illegal is a deterrent more ways than one. 1: you will go to jail. 2: it's hard to find them and acquire them, takes travel and it's difficult to find the dealer. 3: very high priced, because of the illegality and scarceness. Like drugs. If legal, they'd be cheaper and easier, of course.

Again, you should focus on what people DO that harms another, not the inanimate object they may own. These items you mention are not typically held because they're not desired. Again, they're they wrong tool for most jobs.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs, because I figure there'd be a big die off at first and then, you know, Darwin would reassert himself with the survivors who don't take drugs. But drugs are a problem for the individual who takes them: weapons are a problem for all the kids in the classrooms that get the grenades thrown into them.

Really, there's a weapon that got up from it's case, loaded itself, and killed a bunch of kids? We should put a stop to that...

Yet, they're easy to build. And no, they're not designed to kill 'hundreds'.

Why criminals don't use them is probably the same reason criminals don't tend to use fully automatic machine guns, they're not the best tool for the job. If you want to rob a store, a handgun is your best choice. If you want to commit a mass killing, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.

No, grenades would be GREAT for mass killings. Another one that has no clue about the weapons it wants to banOf course they would kill hundreds!! Toss a few of those babies into an early showing of "World War Z," watch the intestines fly! Run down hallways throwing them into every university classroom you run past, wow, you could really rack up a high score! I'm guessing you never activated a hand grenade...

You say they are easy to build. Then you must know that, right? Have you built homemade grenades? Why? Are you planning on using them? How are you planning on using them? What area of the country do you live in? Would you like to provide us with an address?

I get when you have no ability to debate using logic and reason that you'll revert to ad hominem attacks. Works every time...

No, I don't mean to make an ad hominem attack. I appreciate your debating the difficult Second Amendment issue with reasonable good manners.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, because we are defining "criminals" differently. You are saying criminal could easily get grenades but don't because they aren't useful. Well, I don't know that I believe that they could get them easily, but if you consider criminals to be thieves, robbers, drug pushers, burglars, etc., that is probably true that grenades are not their tool of art.

What *I* am calling criminals in this context are the type of people who are actually the whole, entire subject of our concern: the psychotics and dementeds who do mass murders, that popular form of general vengeance and pre-suicide activity today. For them, grenades would be GREAT. Best thing EVER for racking up a high kill score. Run and throw, run and throw.

These are the people who have provoked the whole debate: it's not about the sneak thief in the bedroom jewel box, you know!

 

[eflatminor]

No, why, because the Columbine kids were too stupid to test their bombs before they deployed them? That proves MY point, not yours: if people have to make something (as opposed to buying heavy weaponry ready-to-go from Walmart) MOST of them will be too stupid, like Harris and Klebold were at Columbine. Tremendous deterrent, stupidity and hard work. Another deterrent is the risk of discovery. That's why I didn't click on your link. You think people aren't watching and recording who goes to sites like that? Okay............

You still don't get it. ANYTHING criminals want, that they believe will help them carry out their crime, they will get. That's the point. Banning such items only put those hoping to defend themselves against these criminals at a disadvantage. Criminals aren't using grenades because they're not the right tool for the job. Same goes for good guys that wish to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with building vs buying.



Making your own grenades is so difficult that almost no one has; I've never heard of anyone committing a crime with them. Correct, because a grenade is not the best choice for criminals or good guys. They're good for subduing enemy soldiers in a machine gun nest, not for armed robberies, mass killings, or or home defense

If it were easy, people would. Wrong, again. They're not used because they're the wrong tool for the job, not because they're difficult to build or acquire or because they're illegal.


You hear of people downloading those infamous nuke instructions, but you never, never hear of someone carrying one they made onto the Mall in front of the Capitol, you know? If nukes were available in Walmart, however, that area would already be a radioactive ruin.

Now it's nuclear bombs? Good God, get a grip!



No, I can't agree with that. Consider drugs: making them illegal DOES make them a whole lot less easily consumed than if you could buy heroin and cocaine at your local liquor store. It just does. Wrong. Illegal drugs are EASIER to obtain than if they were sold by legitimate, and regulated, outlets. This was true of alcohol during prohibition as well. Booze, usually bad booze, was easy to obtain and harder so once legitimate business controlled it's distribution.You have to go to the ghetto, you have to deal with lowlifes, etc. Yea, right, can't get drugs in the suburbs...Same thing with weapons. Buying grenades and submachine guns and rocket launchers at Dick's Sporting Goods would lead to a WHOLE lot more people owning them than is the case now, since they are illegal. Illegal is a deterrent more ways than one. 1: you will go to jail. 2: it's hard to find them and acquire them, takes travel and it's difficult to find the dealer. 3: very high priced, because of the illegality and scarceness. Like drugs. If legal, they'd be cheaper and easier, of course.

Again, you should focus on what people DO that harms another, not the inanimate object they may own. These items you mention are not typically held because they're not desired. Again, they're they wrong tool for most jobs.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs, because I figure there'd be a big die off at first and then, you know, Darwin would reassert himself with the survivors who don't take drugs. But drugs are a problem for the individual who takes them: weapons are a problem for all the kids in the classrooms that get the grenades thrown into them.

Really, there's a weapon that got up from it's case, loaded itself, and killed a bunch of kids? We should put a stop to that...



No, grenades would be GREAT for mass killings. Another one that has no clue about the weapons it wants to banOf course they would kill hundreds!! Toss a few of those babies into an early showing of "World War Z," watch the intestines fly! Run down hallways throwing them into every university classroom you run past, wow, you could really rack up a high score! I'm guessing you never activated a hand grenade...

You say they are easy to build. Then you must know that, right? Have you built homemade grenades? Why? Are you planning on using them? How are you planning on using them? What area of the country do you live in? Would you like to provide us with an address?

I get when you have no ability to debate using logic and reason that you'll revert to ad hominem attacks. Works every time...

No, I don't mean to make an ad hominem attack. I appreciate your debating the difficult Second Amendment issue with reasonable good manners.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, because we are defining "criminals" differently. You are saying criminal could easily get grenades but don't because they aren't useful. Well, I don't know that I believe that they could get them easily, but if you consider criminals to be thieves, robbers, drug pushers, burglars, etc., that is probably true that grenades are not their tool of art.

What *I* am calling criminals in this context are the type of people who are actually the whole, entire subject of our concern: the psychotics and dementeds who do mass murders, that popular form of general vengeance and pre-suicide activity today. For them, grenades would be GREAT. Best thing EVER for racking up a high kill score. Run and throw, run and throw.

I disagree. The best weapon for a mass killing by one crazed individual would be a semi-automatic rifle with lots and lots of ammunition, which is exactly what we tend to see in these incidents.

Either way, it is clearly not illegality that keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Nobody is calling for the repeal of the 1934 Firearms Act, whatever the intellectual arguments against it. That's because machine guns and explosives are not what the good or bad guys (or crazies) demand for the job at hand.

HOWEVER, firearms and accessories that our current crop of gun grabbers are trying to ban are EXACTLY the type of tools criminals and crazies tend to use. Therefore, it only makes sense to ensure law abiding citizens are equally well armed. Again, it would be insane to advocate giving an edge to the bad guys, however defined.

And that's before we even consider that whole inalienable right to self defense and the 'shall not be infringed' thing. Even in the absence of a 2nd amendment and enumerated powers in the Constitution (gun control not being one of them), it makes NO sense put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs. None whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pointing out that your arguments are stupid, idiotic, and specious, is not name calling.

Okay, I didn't really think it would work out. Good-bye. Another one bites the dust.......

Feel free to report me for braking the rules, just be prepared to be laughed at.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Its not. Constitutional law is clear on the matter.

The courts interpretation of the Constitution is subject to change. There is no legal reason why a new court could not reach a different decsion than a previous court.

Yes, they -could- arbitrarily overturn the two rulings w/o any sound reason.
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade, for the foreseable future. I consider that this is a very possible, though deplorable thing. I see no reason why liberals should not attempt to do the same, with regard to, what I consider to be, legal precedents that do not reflect commion sense in todays society regarding guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, which bit of the 2nd excludes nukes?

It doesn't exclude nukes. That's the thing. Or poison gas, or anthrax. These are all recognized and well-known military weaponry, so unless the Second excludes anything that requires a group for deployment ---- and I really don't see why it should exclude groups of soldiers working together, logically, then logically, everything used in war now should be legal for everyone to hold in their hot little hands at home.

Practically, that would be a problem even worse than the one we have now.

You shouldn't let your preconceptions about laws color your response to learning.

Are you aware that every single weapon that the military uses is sold to them by citizens? If it was actually illegal for anyone to own an F-18 fighter jet they wouldn't be able to buy them from McDonnell Douglas, would they? Nor would they be able to buy Patriot Missiles, cruise missiles, drones, tanks, aircraft carriers, or anything else that the military uses, because they are all manufactured by the private sector.

Another interesting fact, the USS Missouri is a fully functional battleship that is capable of going into combat, yet it is not owned by the military.

 

[eflatminor]

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade...

Someone reversed Row v Wade? Please cite the law or court ruling.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade...

Someone reversed Row v Wade? Please cite the law or court ruling.

i understand that some people can not understand the meaning of a sentence that has a small typo in it, so I will reword it for you:

"I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to attempt to reverse Rowe Vs. Wade...."

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.

 

[eflatminor]

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade...

Someone reversed Row v Wade? Please cite the law or court ruling.

i understand that some people can not understand the meaning of a sentence that has a small typo in it, so I will reword it for you:

"I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to attempt to reverse Rowe Vs. Wade...."

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.

Withdrawn. An issue I really don't care to discuss. My bad.

 

[Circe]

I disagree. The best weapon for a mass killing by one crazed individual would be a semi-automatic rifle with lots and lots of ammunition, which is exactly what we tend to see in these incidents.

Either way, it is clearly not illegality that keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Nobody is calling for the repeal of the 1934 Firearms Act, whatever the intellectual arguments against it. That's because machine guns and explosives are not what the good or bad guys (or crazies) demand for the job at hand.

You aren't going to like this...I have an absolutely killer argument, so to speak, against this point of view. It is true that now, here, in the USA, crazies use semiautomatics of various length, which they CAN get, but not grenades or other explosives, which they cannot get, not nearly as easily as they can get the assault rifles and Glocks with big magazines.

However, what do the terrorists use basically all over the world day in and day out? They sure don't use assault rifles...........

They use explosives. Every single day, in Iraqi markets, on the Turkish border with Syria in refugee camps, in Egyptian crowds, thrown at Afghans queuing for jobs, or Afghans sitting in a circle meeting, in Africa, in Tunisia last week, in Israeli restaurants, and on and on. Years and years of explosions to kill groups of people. Because that is by far the best way to kill masses of people if you are going for a high kill rate, and they always are. They mostly make their own explosives, but probably would LOVE to have a few cases of USA manufactured grenades: talk about quality control!

I don't know why you say grenades wouldn't be useful to throw into classrooms, work areas, theaters, etc. if someone was crazy -- isn't that what they are FOR? I read that soldiers threw grenades into Iraqi stone houses all the time to clear them out. You throw them at groups of people, and they all blow up, limbs a-flying.

All over the world anyone who wants to blow up a lot of people chooses bombs: cell phone or pressure switch controlled often, but grenades would work, that's why soldiers carry them. So suppose people could buy them at Walmart? They would, right? Everyone else in the world uses bombs, and if our crazies could get grenades, why would they fool with assault rifles? Much too slow. At Virginia Tech the mass murderer Cho used guns, but he went from classroom to classroom like Lanza did. Think of the improved efficiency and kill rate if he had had a manbag full of grenades from Walmart! Throw one in and keep going, throw another in another room, keep going.

The rest of the world has a HUGE problem with mass murderers, and they pretty much all use explosives. So grenades would quickly become the weapon of choice if crazies and terrorists here could get them freely under the Second Amendment.

So there is a problem about the Second Amendment already being infringed, since logically, grenades are clearly protected, but somehow --- we don't get to buy them at Walmart anyway.

 

[Circe]

HOWEVER, firearms and accessories that our current crop of gun grabbers are trying to ban are EXACTLY the type of tools criminals and crazies tend to use. Therefore, it only makes sense to ensure law abiding citizens are equally well armed. Again, it would be insane to advocate giving an edge to the bad guys, however defined.

And that's before we even consider that whole inalienable right to self defense and the 'shall not be infringed' thing. Even in the absence of a 2nd amendment and enumerated powers in the Constitution (gun control not being one of them), it makes NO sense put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs. None whatsoever.

Sounds like you are expecting to go to war.

Who needs to defend their home with an assault rifle? or a hundred-bullet magazine? Darn. Doesn't happen. Doesn't EVER happen. Maybe you should consider calling the police if 15 or 20 thugs come at you screaming like feral pigs --- one begins to wonder how you have been living to attract so much bad guy attention that you have to use military weapons to fight them.

Darn, and here I was thinking a five-shot revolver under the bed would do any job I have to do.

eflatminor, I just looked on my User CP page and noticed to my surprise that you neg repped me this afternoon, adding a pungent nastyname to the neg like a cat dropping.

You are aware that neg reps are against the rules of this forum? Neg Rep reversed

[Sigh] XXXXXXX

 

[eflatminor]

It is true that now, here, in the USA, crazies use semiautomatics of various length, which they CAN get, but not grenades or other explosives, which they cannot get, not nearly as easily as they can get the assault rifles and Glocks with big magazines.

Gunpowder, the basic ingredient in most explosives can be purchased in any quantity you like without a license or identification. It's MUCH easier to legally buy it than an actual firearm. And as we learned in Oklahoma City, one can also use fertilizer for bombs. Again, easier than a firearm to obtain.

I therefore do not accept your premise that explosives are not the most common choice of mass killers because of their illegality.

More importantly, America's crazies are not using semi autos to kill because they obtain them legally. They usually steal them or obtain them on the black market. Again, the legality of any item does not deter criminals from breaking the law. It's what they do.

 

[uscitizen]

I guess anything you can carry or bear is ok by the constitution?

 

[eflatminor]

HOWEVER, firearms and accessories that our current crop of gun grabbers are trying to ban are EXACTLY the type of tools criminals and crazies tend to use. Therefore, it only makes sense to ensure law abiding citizens are equally well armed. Again, it would be insane to advocate giving an edge to the bad guys, however defined.

And that's before we even consider that whole inalienable right to self defense and the 'shall not be infringed' thing. Even in the absence of a 2nd amendment and enumerated powers in the Constitution (gun control not being one of them), it makes NO sense put good citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs. None whatsoever.

Sounds like you are expecting to go to war.

No, just ensuring I'm prepared to defend myself and my family.

Who needs to defend their home with an assault rifle? or a hundred-bullet magazine?

I did. As I've written about before, I faced two armed criminals in my family's home as a young man. They both had high capacity magazines in semi automatic pistols. I encountered them with a semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine (a gun that would be banned if Feinstein has her way). I was able to put a round through the couch to get their attention and still had plenty of ammo to hold them at bay until the police arrived. I could NOT have done that with a bolt action rifle or a single barrel shotgun. I would of had to of shot one of them and fought the other off without a firearm.

So why would you want to have seen me put at a tactical disadvantage against criminals that have semi autos with high capacity magazines?

Further, a AR platform carbine (shorter barrel) is the PERFECT choice for home defense or any potential close quarters engagement. Just ask the government.

Darn. Doesn't happen. Doesn't EVER happen.

Incorrect. Another example were the Korean store owners that defended themselves with AR rifles during the LA riots. Just how many thugs could they have kept at bay with a shotgun?

Maybe you should consider calling the police if 15 or 20 thugs come at you screaming like feral pigs --- one begins to wonder how you have been living to attract so much bad guy attention that you have to use military weapons to fight them.

The police have NO duty to protect you. The Supreme Court ruled as such. And remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Darn, and here I was thinking a five-shot revolver under the bed would do any job I have to do.

That would be an incorrect assumption. Either way, you don't get to determine what someone else needs.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

eflatminor, I just looked on my User CP page and noticed to my surprise that you neg repped me this afternoon, adding a pungent nastyname to the neg like a cat dropping.

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Flopper]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration.

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals. If individual sales required background checks, then that obstacle becomes a lot bigger. We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I certainly would not attempt to argue with someone who once put a bullet through a couch and saved his family from a band of crazed criminals.....

 

[PaulS1950]

There is no limit on the second ammendment but it does ask that weapons suitable for use by the military infantryman be protected so the (reserve) militia can be called upon to report for duty armed with the same weapon carried by the military.

As it stands, now, we cannot do that due to the fact that full auto weapons, rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades are controlled through a "tax" stamp that one must have before purchasing any class III weapons. Those who go through the process and pay the tax can buy, own and operate class III weapons but for most of us those weapons will be forever out of reach.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, I certainly would not attempt to argue with someone who once put a bullet through a couch and saved his family from a band of crazed criminals.....

Two guys only, both armed with pistols. They'd robbed several homes. Bad guys, not crazed.

Importantly, no one got hurt. That very well might have been different if I had only one shot or an often less than effective revolver.

You appear to be advocating that which could have very well resulted in a tragedy for me, which includes ANYONE getting hurt. I don't get that.

 

[eflatminor]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration.

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals.

XXXXXXX
1) They weren't in California, which requires background checks. It's had no impact on violent crime.
2) They weren't in Canada, where the homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented.
3) The so called "gun show loophole" is a made up emergency. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only .7% of convicts obtained their firearms at a gun show.
4) The vast, vast majority of guns used in crime are obtained illegally from the street, family or friends.

Registration won't deter anyone. The good guys will register, the bad guys will not.

We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

The evidence suggests otherwise.