Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by signalmankenneth, May 29, 2018.
Now, what weapons are both "dangerous and unusual", and therefore subject to restriction?
Should the 2nd Amendment allow for individuals to own nuclear warheads?
Yep; a violent criminal with a long history of crime got a gun IN DEFIANCE OF THE LAW and slaughtered people. That's not a gun issue, that's a priorities issue. We throw people in prison for life for non-violent offenses and let the murderers and rapists out with a slap on the wrist.
Americans handle guns with exceptional safety. The percentage of guns used in criminal incidents or accidents amounts to about 0.001% or less of all guns in circulation, and the majority of those harmed by crime generally are involved in it themselves; often in areas with strict gun control.
I have a question: why can't the UK figure out that the United States is not a single contiguous nation but 50 separate entities with sometimes dramatically different cultures, societal mores, and laws? A state like Vermont - with relatively lax gun laws - actually has a per-capita homicide rate just as low as the best areas of the UK, and a far LOWER rate of violent crime overall. New York has fewer homicides than London.
So, feel free to keep your erroneous (and spurious) denigration to yourself.
I love how gun control advocates go to the ludicrous in their arguments. No one argues for nukes and everyone with half a brain cell can differentiate between "arms" and "ordnance".
If we are going to answer the question just out of pure literalism, then yes, the 2nd Amendment was meant to cover "arms" of all kinds. If people were honest, they'd understand that we SHOULD have had a discussion about the limits of the 2nd Amendment when the destructive power of ordnance began to reach the levels it did in the early 20th Century, and probably pursued a Constitutional Amendment to separate "ordnance" from "arms" in the Constitutional sense.
But, we didn't do that. Instead, the government pulled an end run around the Constitution with the NFA of 1934, and the Supreme Court became complicit in that crime through the criminally inept Miller decision. Since then, the government has run roughshod over the Constitution in myriad ways... and the American people accept it without protest; a sad commentary on the state of our Republic.
Ironic given the disingenuous abuse of statistical data.
Ironic since you claim any facts inconvenient to your agenda are "disingenuous."
So we can put you down in the category that believes that nuclear warheads are "dangerous and unusual" and therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Now that we have a fixed the far ends of the spectrum as lying between no weapons at all and nuclear warheads all we need to do now is figure out where the line needs to be drawn.
Care to take a stab and give us your opinion as to what does not fall into the "dangerous and unusual" category? For instance are Stinger Missiles "dangerous and unusual" in your opinion?
You clearly didn't read what wrote. I said I believe there should be a differentiation between "arms" and "ordnance". Conventional small arms should be unrestricted.
Are nuclear devices "dangerous and usual"? Are they "in common use for lawful purposes"? Are they "destructive devices"?
Any other weapons you'd like to note as "dangerous and unusual"?
So Stinger Missiles are also "dangerous and usual" IYO?
Ok, what about an AK-47? Where are you on that?
They are "destructive devices" and "not in common use for lawful purposes".
Fully automatic or semi-automatic? "AK-47" could be either.
Does the line get drawn between full and semi-automatic?
Currently, yes, per NFA 1934. Due to those restrictions, and the cost bump from the Hughes Amendment, it would be difficult to argue that fully automatic AK-47s (or other fully automatic firearms) are in "common use". It's evident that the legally owned fully automatic weapons are owned "for lawful purposes".
It's been established that semiautomatic rifles such as the AK-47 are indeed "in common use for lawful purposes" through Shew v Malloy:
"The Connecticut legislation here bans firearms in common use. Millions of Americans possess the firearms banned by this act for hunting and target shooting. See Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (finding “[a]pproximately 1.6 million AR–15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and in 2007 this one popular model accounted for 5.5 percent of all firearms, and 14.4 percent of all rifles, produced in the U.S. for the domestic market”).
Additionally, millions of Americans commonly possess firearms that have magazines which hold more than ten cartridges. See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261 (finding that “fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians in 1994 were equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds, and approximately 4.7 million more [of] such magazines were imported into the United States between 1995 and 2000).
The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are “in common use” within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes. The legislation here bans the purchase, sale, and possession of assault weapons and LCMs, subject to certain exceptions, which the court concludes more than minimally affect the plaintiffs' ability to acquire and use the firearms, and therefore levies a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights"
They proceed from a political and ideological bias -- the reality of the situation doesn't matter to them, so they choose to remain ignorant of the particulars. As such, they cannot argue with knowledge or reason -- and don't care.
As we already know from AR15's a bump stock is all that is needed to convert it from semi-automatic to the equivalent of full automatic and these are legal accessories sold over the counter.
An AK47 can be converted into a grenade launcher simply by mounting the cup-type launcher on the barrel.
Therefore a weapon that is deemed NOT to be "dangerous and unusual" can be converted to "dangerous and unusual" with no significant effort.
Given that is our current REALITY doesn't it stand to reason that the term "dangerous and unusual" needs to be significantly clarified, if not replaced with something considerably more definitive.
In essence any weapon that has the POTENTIAL to cross that line should require that anyone wishing to own such a weapon must be made to meet a higher burden in the interests of the safety and well being of We the People.
You "could" become a rapist at any moment. Let's pass a law that makes sure you cannot cross that line.
A grenade launcher without grenades is worthless. Any semiautomatic firearm can be made to "bump-fire" using a piece of string or a belt loop. Neither are sufficient reasons to restrict firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" or that are not themselves "dangerous and unusual".
A number of bricks of .22 LR ammo can be disassembled and the gunpowder removed, and reassembled with no significant effort using common materials found at your local hardware store or Bed, Bath and Beyond to make pipe bombs. The making and possession of a pipe bomb is illegal. Owning ammunition, bulk gunpowder and having access to Home Depot is not. "Dangerous and unusual" has been clarified - no firearm manufactured and sold today is considered to be "dangerous and unusual" per Caetano v Massachusetts.
The Gun Control Clack has been doing just that for ages and getting away with it.
Please provide this evidence, or are you talking about some cherry picked data that makes your claim appear accurate?
Years ago, a highschool student set about to prove that an average person could indeed make a Nuclear device, and was successful except for obtaining the necessary fissionable material.
He did construct everything else.
Separate names with a comma.