Gun Control (For Preech)

[mburbank]

So, the constitution says we have a right to bear arms, yes?

But I think we as a people already completely accept gun control. It's just a question of where the line is drawn that we have such disagreement about.

The vast majority of the country would agree that I don't have a right to own my own personal Nuclear weapon or vial of weaponized smallpox. A lot of people would say that I shouldn't be able to have my own tank or a howitzer or even a bazooka. It's right around the level of machine guns and assault rifles that things start to get fuzzy.

So unless you want to argue I should be able to get my own Nuke (and I do want one) what's your point?

[El Blanco]

If you have the funds and equpiment to handle a mininuke, I say go for it. Private citizens already do own bazookas and tanks and shit like that.

[mburbank]

Legally? Like, ready to fire tanks with ammo? There needs to be a law against that shit.

[El Blanco]

For what? Owning something you don't like?

Actually, I can understand laws outlawing nuclear reactors in the basement because of a silly little thing called radiation. That gets in the air or ground and it fucks over everybody.

A tank, on the other hand, is a vehicle. It just happens to have a canon sticking out of it. If I own enough land to keep and maintain a tank, I'm not harming anyone. Only if I rev it up and rampage through town is anyone in danger. It would take a deliberate act to be a danger.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

On a slightly related tangent, the Pentagon spends money every year on research for a nuclear hand grenade. Figure that one out.

I think we should also have state militias, as the amendment reads. With nuclear hand grenades.

Taken literally, it seems like an amendment that sort of lacked vision, which I think is sort of uncharacteristic of the constitution as a whole (if Hamilton wrote it it would've been different ).

But to be fair, what about the 1st Amendment? Does the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" really mean that kids can't have prayer in school? What about "Under God"??? Is that Congress codifying a specific religion?

[El Blanco]

The Constitution was left a little vague in several areas to allow some wiggle room for changing times.

I think a big problem with these kinds of debates now-a-days is that people think the Founding Fathers were of a single mind. This couldn't be further from the truth.

There was the Great Compromise, 3/5 Compromise (how is that holding up these days?), debates, conventions, arguments, accusations about people's mothers, and even a gun fight between two of the FF.

So, when we argue about what an Ammendment means, we aren't arguing what the FF meant, but what one particular Founder we agree with said.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

What about "Under God"??? Is that Congress codifying a specific religion?

I don't have anything to say about gun control, being one of those pesky "undecideds" but on this I have to say that "Under God" codifies theism in general and monotheism specifically. Furthermore, "Under God" was inserted in the pledge to point out that we Americans weren't like those Godless Commies, and such rhetoric is an unnecessary endorsement of religion.

We are not One Nation Under God.

[mburbank]

Balls! May I or may I not have a nuclear weapon?

Don't I need special and difficult to obtain liscences even to have dynamite?

What about flamethrowers? I'm not being flip on that one, I'd seriously like to know, because if I can have one I want one.

[Juttin]

I think a gun that is just enough to shoot someone in the legs/arms to stop them from trying to harm/rob you is good enough.

I know that the amendment called for rifles and muskets and such, but I think police level pistols are where the right to bear arms is kept.

Anything that infringes on someone's rights is contradicting the suspect's rights to do so.

So, no. You shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon that can/will kill or maim someone.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

"Under God" codifies theism in general and monotheism specifically.

Where in the constitution does it say theism or monotheism shall not be said or even implied by ANYTHING public???

Congress can't recognize, codify, or support one particular religion. We know why this was considered to be important back then, and still is today obviously.

"God" is not a religion. Monotheism isn't even a religion. Sure this debate can go back and forth, but if you take away some degree of staunch secularism from the first amendment I think you're reading into it.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by juttin

I think a gun that is just enough to shoot someone in the legs/arms to stop them from trying to harm/rob you is good enough.

Stop watching movies. Thats just not logistically sound. Ask anyone who works with guns. They will tell you that your best bet is three center mass.

I know that the amendment called for rifles and muskets and such,

No it doesn't. I says the people have a right to bear arms.

but I think police level pistols are where the right to bear arms is kept.

Police are issued body armor and automatic weapons.

Anything that infringes on someone's rights is contradicting the suspect's rights to do so.

My owning a .50 caliber Browning M2 has nothing to do with you or your rights. If I decide to spray your living room with it, then its a problem. The same as if I decide to park my car there.

So, no. You shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon that can/will kill or maim someone.

Thats everything. Do you know how many veins and arteries go through your arms and legs? Do you know what it takes for a bullet to actually rip off a limb?

[Juttin]

I'm saying weak pistols.

And you're also more likely to not kill someone by shooting them in the arm, maybe shoulder

A 50 Cal. pistol is one of those guns that can severely injure someone when you shoot them in a trivial place.

A pistol, maybe around .30 cal., wouldn't be too much on a limb (no pun intended)

I'm not saying " I think we should use guns to kill people"

Also, when the amendment was made, we were in a war-bound time
They actually meant for the guns to be used against British soldiers.
And they were generalizing in muskets, and rifles.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by juttin

I'm saying weak pistols.

I now that. Its just not realistic.

And you're also more likely to not kill someone by shooting them in the arm, maybe shoulder

Ever fire a gun? I don't think you have. Again, talk to people that know this sort of stuff and listen to what they tell you about aiming at shoulders.

A 50 Cal. pistol is one of those guns that can severely injure someone when you shoot them in a trivial place.

Any gun will do that.

A pistol, maybe around .30 cal., wouldn't be too much on a limb (no pun intended)

What do you think has to happen for major damage to occur?

I'm not saying " I think we should use guns to kill people"

Well, we certainly can't use them for bottle openers.

Also, when the amendment was made, we were in a war-bound time

Doesn't matter. The Constitution was meant to define the relationship between the government and the people.

They actually meant for the guns to be used against British soldiers.
And they were generalizing in muskets, and rifles.

Then it would have been written that way. The implication is that it was meant to protect the people from any tyrranical government. Foreign or domestic. The words "British" "musket" and "rifle" are nowhere in the Constitution.

[mburbank]

Neither is te word 'death ray' but I want me one.

[El Blanco]

You want a pair of rocket boots thrown in there with your order?

[mburbank]

I'm pretty sure the constitution speciffically prohibits private ownership of rocket boots.

[JMHX]

As a proud gun-owner, here is what disturbs me most about this gun control issue: anti-gun advocates and Democrats (for the purpose of this we will accept that there are few Democrats in the House and Senate who have taken strong stands against gun control legislation) want to interpret the 2nd Amendment's protection of arms very strictly, using original intent and strict constructionism. However, they have no problem expanding the other 9 amendments as "living documents," and have taken wide interpretations of them while essentially refusing to give the 2nd Amendment similar treatment.

It seems an awful double-standard to limit and attempt to restrict one right, setting it aside from the other nine, which are defended tooth-and-nail by countless activist groups. Similarly, punishing those legal gun owners who have never committed crimes, who in some cases have a long family heritage of gun ownership, for the crimes of those who have most likely illegally purchased guns not open for sale in the United States, is ridiculous. Do we ban every driver on the road for the recklessness of one drunken teen? Do we recall kitchen knives because one enraged wife castrates her husband in his sleep?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's a great point, which is basically what I was trying to say above.

[maggiekarp]

You can't really compare a gun to a car or a kitchen knife, though. Those things have purposes besides killing.


I'm kind of torn on the gun issue :/

[El Blanco]

You can't accidentaly kill with any of those items. It takes a deliberate, concsious act.

[JMHX]

Originally Posted by maggiekarp

You can't really compare a gun to a car or a kitchen knife, though. Those things have purposes besides killing.

Plenty of guns have purposes besides killing. Sport rifles are part of the Olympics, and have become such an omnipresent force in gun and sporting stores that it has turned into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Besides, since when is killing a deer a crime?

[maggiekarp]

I'm talking about stuff like handguns with the sole purpose of death to humans. I don't have any problems with sport rifles or hunting guns.

[JMHX]

Originally Posted by maggiekarp

I'm talking about stuff like handguns with the sole purpose of death to humans. I don't have any problems with sport rifles or hunting guns.

I own a handgun used for hunting small game, as well as one Smith and Wesson sport-shooting handgun. Handguns are hardly people-killers, though they are effective in home defense, which is protected by law.

[CaptainBubba]

Arms = Guns.

No one ever reffered to cannons as Arms. That is Artillery. Tanks are Armoured Artillery. Nukes are bombs, or Nuclear Arms if you must be a penis and I know how you like to pretend.

Machine Guns and automatic weapons are nessecary when dealing with criminals who have obtained body armor or are generally intelligent enough to take cover and have automatic weapons themselves. In addition automatic weapons are used in less than 1% of violent crime.

This really is not an issue. No one in this country but my dad and you wants to privately own a nuke.

[JMHX]

Automatic weapons are also banned in the United States, so no one needs to worry about "assault weapons" falling into the hands of responsible gun owners.