Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

'Regulate' had a different common meaning back then. It meant 'to ensure adequate supply and uniform function', like a regulator in a valve assembly. 'Regulate' as in 'restrict via bureaucratic authority' came into common usage later.

The militia was supposed to be well trained, well supplied and cohesive as a group. Not restricted to certain firearms.

 

Yes....

and that translates to everyone and anyone can have whatever weapon they want, anytime, anyplace, without restrictions or infringements of any kind.

 

Of course. I mean you're not talking about using them are you? If you were I reckon we'd need to determine appropriate level of force. But outside of that, if you're not doing any harm to anyone else, what's the problem?

 

What do you mean appropriate level of force?

No infringement.

 

Well I mean if someone spit on you or pushed you and you shot them with a bazooka I'd say that wasn't an appropriate level of force used.

Now if someone pulled a gun out to rob or shoot you and you whipped out your fully auto .50 cal and laid him down. I'd probably say that was fine.

 

Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment?

Seems to me I can do what I want with whatever weapon I want.

 

You can't sue a gun manufacture for someone misusing their product anymore than you can sue a company that makes hammers because some jackass busted your windshield with one. The only way a gun manufacture could be legally liable is if they knowingly sold their products to someone who was unfit.

The only ones who could realistically be sued were Lanza's family. His father knew that his son was mentally unstable, and did nothing to stop his wife from allowing him access to weapons. This was negligence on his part, and a judge could be persuaded to rule that if he had acted, Sandy Hook could have been prevented. In fact, most of the families of the victims DID sue the Lanza family over the shooting.

 

Nowhere does the second amendment give anyone the right to murder anyone else. It give you the right to be armed, not the right to use those arms indiscriminately.

 

That depends entirely on whether we value and uphold the constitution.

 

I don't have to be in order to keep and bear arms.

 

It gives me the right to keep and bear any arm, any weapon, indiscriminately without any infringement by anyone.

If I want to use a flame thrower at the park where kids are playing, I suggest they get out the way.

 

And we do...

and it translates in plain English that I can keep and bear chemical weapons and a tank and go rolling anywhere where I want, waving a flag in one hand and an AR-15 in the other, and no one better infringe me.

 

While it is true that you can armor a vehicle and own chemicals that can be dangerous, you may not go wherever you want or threaten/endanger others by 'waving' firearms or deploying chemicals in an unsafe manner. Neither trespassing, nor brandishing nor reckless endangerment is constitutionally protected.

 

Gun control schemes have no impact on the ability of criminals to obtain guns, so they are irrational. Google: gun blueprints.

"Category x F T R S
Vector Drawing AUG Weapon Vector Drawing vector
BREN LMG Weapon 2000 x 1129
Vector Drawing Bizon Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Brandt M1927-31 Weapon 657 x 225
Bren L4 Weapon 440 x 182
Bren LMG Weapon 2000 x 1129
Bren Mk. I Weapon 900 x 484
Bren Mk. I Weapon 900 x 484
Bren Mk. II Weapon 900 x 350
Bren Mk.1 Weapon 449 x 191
Bren Mk.IV Weapon 640 x 215
Bren Mk.IV Weapon 2000 x 1129
Bren Mk.IV MG Weapon 641 x 214
Browning .5 M2HB Weapon 721 x 134
Browning M1918A1 BAR Weapon 600 x 148
Browning M1918A2 BAR Weapon 361 x 112
Browning M1918A2 BAR Weapon 600 x 181
Browning M2 (.50 Caliber) Weapon 2000 x 1129
Browning M2 0.5 MG Weapon 1575 x 493
Browning MA4 (.30 Caliber) (1919) Weapon 2000 x 1129
Browning MA4 (.30 Caliber) (1919) Weapon 2000 x 1129
Browning MG Weapon 517 x 344
Chatellerault M1924-29 Weapon 650 x 223
Vector Drawing DP-27 Weapon Vector Drawing vector
DP-27 LMG Weapon 2000 x 1129
Degtyaryov machine gun (DP) Weapon 2000 x 1129
Vector Drawing FAMAS Weapon Vector Drawing vector
FG 42-1 Weapon 2000 x 1129
Gatling Battery Gun Weapon 651 x 169
Vector Drawing HK MP5A3 Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Vector Drawing HK MP5K Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Vector Drawing HK MP5N Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Vector Drawing HK MP5SD Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Vector Drawing HK MP7 Weapon Vector Drawing vector
Vector Drawing HK UMP .45 Weapon Vector Drawing vector
HK UMP 45 Weapon 337 x 161
Heavy machine gun Maxim 1910-1940 (1910) Weapon 2000 x 1129
Heckler-Koch HK121S Weapon 2000 x 1129
IMI Magal SMG Weapon 545 x 197"

https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/weapons/machine-guns/

 

I would say if you wanted to carry a flamethrower at the park, you would be within your rights, provided it wasn't an explosion hazard (flame throwers used in warfare are explosion hazards while flamethrowers of the sort put out by Elon Musk are toys and no more dangerous than a propane grill).

Using said flamethrower where children (or anyone) are congregating would be brandishing or reckless endangerment, and not constitutionally protected.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say I can't use it or brandish it recklessly?

 

It doesn't.

However, the Constitution doesn't restrict the government from making laws regarding the use of the arms you bear, so while you can't be restricted from bearing those arms in public, you may be restricted from using them.

This is the reasoning by which CA gets away with forbidding the open carry of loaded firearms. You can carry a gun down a street, and you can carry ammo down the street, but you can't carry a gun loaded with ammo down the street without a permit to conceal it. The unpermitted must carry their ammo separately from the firearm.

 

Will building a wall keep people from selling/doing/importing drugs illegally?

Will speed limits keep speeders from speeding?

Will tax laws keep the president from cheating on his taxes?

 

Huh. Well that sorta ruins everything.

How come Trump banned bump stocks? Isn't that unconstitutional?

 

It's the guns in the hands of those who really shouldn't be trusted with a butter knife and we have MILLIONS of them who are Legal Gun Owners.We have no method of separating the sane from the insane, consequently all are allowed to buy guns and ammo and it's the reason we live in a perpetual war zone and have for decades.

 

If banning bump stocks is unconstitutional, then so is banning automatic weapons. FTR, yes, I believe banning either is unconstitutional, although its also true that bump stocks are worthless toys, good for nothing but making a rifle unreliable and wasting ammunition. As far as concessions to quiet down authoritarians go, it was a wise one that I personally won't be making a sink about.

If, however, Trump bans semi-autos, he loses my vote.

 

The vast majority of gun related violence is perpetrated by straw-purchased handguns that used in gang/drug related activity in urban areas. Lawfully adjudicated mental illness does actually make one a prohibited person, aka, not a 'Legal Gun Owner.'

 

So Trump is playing games with the Constitution.

I guess if Trump can ban one Constitutionally protected thing, he can ban another.

What do you use a semi-auto for? Killing people?

 

When the constitution was written guns fired one round then took two or three minutes to reload,there was no way they could conceive of the rapid fire weapons we have today.

 

He can try, if he wants to alienate his base in 2020.
There won't be any noticeable vote reduction as a result of bump stocks.

The same thing I use a revolver for.
Revolvers fire a bullet every time you pull the trigger, just like semi-auto, because the next round is loaded and charged by the pulling of the trigger. Would you ban revolvers?