Your Second Amendment Rights

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

On the other hand, if I knew anyone around me that did not believe in the second amendment, I would just let them shoot the SOB.

and you wonder why they call you people freaks.

[sj5 4]

If I can afford one then I would buy one.

Edited April 5, 2009 by sj5

[46]

From the majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From the majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

...and I think it's reasonable to say that any weapon that holds high round clips fall into that category.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

From the majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

...and I think it's reasonable to say that any weapon that holds high round clips fall into that category.

Like this?

Or this?

How about belt fed?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For Christ's sake, Bill...are we going to go full circle again??? I understand that you may disagree, but I believe that we can reasonably establish certain weapons that could pose a high threat to the public if they were legal to carry. We could even establish what reasonable criteria that would be, but I'm not going through that whole argument again.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

For Christ's sake, Bill...are we going to go full circle again??? I understand that you may disagree, but I believe that we can reasonably establish certain weapons that could pose a high threat to the public if they were legal to carry. We could even establish what reasonable criteria that would be, but I'm not going through that whole argument again.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/...3635253690.html

[almaty 19]

yikes..even excedrin will not help that headache

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

For Christ's sake, Bill...are we going to go full circle again??? I understand that you may disagree, but I believe that we can reasonably establish certain weapons that could pose a high threat to the public if they were legal to carry. We could even establish what reasonable criteria that would be, but I'm not going through that whole argument again.

[MrsCat 6]

^ I'm not showing that one to Chris, he'll never leave the privacy of the shower.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

If we exclude weapons that aren't used by soldiers (as opposed to thing that strictly are not practical for a single person to "bear" - suitcase nukes, or bomb vests) by that definition there would still be latitute for an individual to carry hand grenades or a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

Obviously if we look at the 2nd amendment in this way there is an implied argument that some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others, which is certainly true; but by the same token its reasonable to wonder why the same arguments are consistently denied with regard to firearms - that some guns are more dangerous than others.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

If we exclude weapons that aren't used by soldiers (as opposed to thing that strictly are not practical for a single person to "bear" - suitcase nukes, or bomb vests) by that definition there would still be latitute for an individual to carry hand grenades or a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

Obviously if we look at the 2nd amendment in this way there is an implied argument that some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others, which is certainly true; but by the same token its reasonable to wonder why the same arguments are consistently denied with regard to firearms - that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Excellent point.

[amberdima 6]

For Christ's sake, Bill...are we going to go full circle again??? I understand that you may disagree, but I believe that we can reasonably establish certain weapons that could pose a high threat to the public if they were legal to carry. We could even establish what reasonable criteria that would be, but I'm not going through that whole argument again.

holy butterface

[natty bumppo 297]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

If we exclude weapons that aren't used by soldiers (as opposed to thing that strictly are not practical for a single person to "bear" - suitcase nukes, or bomb vests) by that definition there would still be latitute for an individual to carry hand grenades or a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

Obviously if we look at the 2nd amendment in this way there is an implied argument that some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others, which is certainly true; but by the same token its reasonable to wonder why the same arguments are consistently denied with regard to firearms - that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Excellent point.

you ignored my posts in your other thread ... and continue to promote exaggerated notions.

Who ... besides you and PP has wanted to have nukes? Who mentions shoulder mounted missile launchers ... hand grenades ... tanks ... bombs ... artillery ... besides you two?

one gun is not more inherently dangerous than another. It is an object ... that needs a person to make it function. What you should be asking is ... what makes one person more inherently dangerous than another. Since you have all these ideas of people possessing all these different weapons ... maybe you are the one more inherently dangerous than others ... hence your obsession with these objects.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

If we exclude weapons that aren't used by soldiers (as opposed to thing that strictly are not practical for a single person to "bear" - suitcase nukes, or bomb vests) by that definition there would still be latitute for an individual to carry hand grenades or a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

Obviously if we look at the 2nd amendment in this way there is an implied argument that some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others, which is certainly true; but by the same token its reasonable to wonder why the same arguments are consistently denied with regard to firearms - that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Excellent point.

you ignored my posts in your other thread ... and continue to promote exaggerated notions.

Who ... besides you and PP has wanted to have nukes? Who mentions shoulder mounted missile launchers ... hand grenades ... tanks ... bombs ... artillery ... besides you two?

one gun is not more inherently dangerous than another. It is an object ... that needs a person to make it function. What you should be asking is ... what makes one person more inherently dangerous than another. Since you have all these ideas of people possessing all these different weapons ... maybe you are the one more inherently dangerous than others ... hence your obsession with these objects.

Pull the other one - we're not talking about inert objects laying around on a table, we're talking about guns being put to the functional use for which they were intended.

But if you're serious about that argument - nukes, missile launchers and hand grenades etc are also not "inherently" dangerous. So what should we conclude from that?

Even more simply - what about swords? Is there some sort of permit you can get that would enable a person to wear a samurai sword on their person?

And if not, why not?