Forums

[Grandma Lynn]

Geez, I don't even like hunting. Won't eat
deer or whatever is shot needlessly.

Now to own a gun is not a crime, but a
right. Keep it safe and if it makes you
feel safer at home, what's wrong with
that?
Not the military kind....no need at all.
God has nothing to do with it. Even
an Atheist can own a gun....thought
I would throw that in.
Since we are on hunting, I hate the
English way of using dogs to tree an
animal and then they can shoot it!
Wonderful sport.

[glenstar]

yes, GL, owning a gun is a right, and a privilege, but owning one that can fire so many rounds is not a right, just like yelling fire in a theater is not a right, nor is yelling bomb at an airport. I am all for small arms in the home for protection, bit not ones that fire so many rounds that can kill numerous people in a mater of a minute.NO ONE is trying to take away all guns, Why can't you see that?

[Grandma Lynn]

yes, GL, owning a gun is a right, and a privilege, but owning one that can fire so many rounds is not a right, just like yelling fire in a theater is not a right, nor is yelling bomb at an airport. I am all for small arms in the home for protection, bit not ones that fire so many rounds that can kill numerous people in a mater of a minute.NO ONE is trying to take away all guns, Why can't you see that?

That's what I've been saying....can't YOU see that?
What the heck are we disagreeing about? Nothing
that you wrote here.
As for taking away ALL guns, I doubt it. But we
never know what some people want, do we?
It seems impossible it could happen.

[glenstar]

No, GL what i a saying is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover guns that are capable of killing mass amounts of people. You may not think that an AR-15 is an assault weapon, but I sure do. If gun owners want to protect their homes, fine, but gosh darn just how many burglars are breaking in at once? Why do you need so many rounds a minute to shoot a burglar? Why do you need so may round to hunt? The whole argument of protection and needing an cannon for protection is ludicrous. You can shoot someone dead with a ,22 for Pete's sake.

This has noting to do with taking away any right to bear arms, just certain type of arms.

By the way, those who say they need high powered guns to protect them from their own government, all that I can say is that maybe they would be more comfortable in another country if they fear their own government,

[EasyGoin]

No, GL what i a saying is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover guns that are capable of killing mass amounts of people.

Actually, whether you think it's right or wrong it does. There are no restrictions in the 2nd Amendment on the type of weapon a person can own other than being able to "keep and bear Arms", which translates into own and carry. So having a tank or cannon could be excluded for example because while you could own one, you can't carry one.

If gun owners want to protect their homes, fine, but gosh darn just how many burglars are breaking in at once? Why do you need so many rounds a minute to shoot a burglar? Why do you need so may round to hunt? The whole argument of protection and needing an cannon for protection is ludicrous.

There is also nothing in the 2nd Amendment about protecting ones home, or hunting. While that was discussed during the Ratification process, that language was not included. What was discussed and included was protecting national sovereignty, putting down insurrections, and protection against tyranny. That's this bit - "security of a free State"

This has noting to do with taking away any right to bear arms, just certain type of arms.

If the govt can take away the right to bear just certain types of arms, what prevents the govt from banning everything other than BB guns?

By the way, those who say they need high powered guns to protect them from their own government, all that I can say is that maybe they would be more comfortable in another country if they fear their own government,

I don't think that most people feel they need guns to protect themselves from the govt. Weapons in the hands of the citizens is a deterrent to the govt getting out of control. If you check your history, you will see that before a dictator takes total control, they first disarm the population. I'm not saying that is happening now, that's just history. But it has happened in various countries around the world, and there is no reason to think that it couldn't happen again, even here in the USA.

[-Alex]

There are no restrictions in the 2nd Amendment on the type of weapon a person can own other than being able to "keep and bear Arms", which translates into own and carry. So having a tank or cannon could be excluded for example because while you could own one, you can't carry one.

Can you cite a source for your claims? Where do you get that keep and bear arms translates into carry-able weapons? And then, you're arguing that any weapon that someone can carry - such as an over the shoulder rocket launcher, fully automatic weapon, etc. people have a right to keep and bear?

If the govt can take away the right to bear just certain types of arms, what prevents the govt from banning everything other than BB guns?

What do you mean "if?" The National Firearms Act already took away the "right" to bear just certain types of arms.

I don't think that most people feel they need guns to protect themselves from the govt. Weapons in the hands of the citizens is a deterrent to the govt getting out of control.

Is that what gun nuts think? That if people wave a gun around, it prevent the Congress or President or leaders from going out of control in some way?

[EasyGoin]

Can you cite a source for your claims?

The Heller decision.

And then, you're arguing that any weapon that someone can carry - such as an over the shoulder rocket launcher, fully automatic weapon, etc. people have a right to keep and bear?

Nope I'm not arguing that at all. What I said was that those are the only restrictions in the 2nd Amendment. BTW: In some states you can have fully automatic weapons. Rocket launchers or RPGs don't fall into the "commonly used" weapons outlined in Heller.

What do you mean "if?" The National Firearms Act already took away the "right" to bear just certain types of arms.

What weapons would that be exactly? My guess is you're talking about fully automatic weapons, which can be personally owned and used if you live in a state that allows it and you have a Class C license from the fed gov, and you pay $200 for a tax stamp and have the money to purchase the weapon.

Is that what gun nuts think? That if people wave a gun around, it prevent the Congress or President or leaders from going out of control in some way?

Are you saying that an elected govt has never turned into a dictatorship? That a govt has never, in spite of the law oppressed it's people? That a government has never ordered the murder of it's citizens?

[-Alex]

The Heller decision.

Looking at the Heller decision, I don't see where they mention the right to keep and bear arms applying to those you can physically carry. And also, the Heller decision I believe found that there can be restrictions on weapons, correct? That the 2nd Amendment wasn't a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Nope I'm not arguing that at all. What I said was that those are the only restrictions in the 2nd Amendment.

Okay, so you're saying the only restrictions found in the 2nd Amendment are that it applies only to those you can carry, whereas other restrictions are found outside of the 2nd Amendment?

Rocket launchers or RPGs don't fall into the "commonly used" weapons outlined in Heller.

Though "commonly used" isn't language found in the 2nd Amendment, of course. The 2nd Amendment covers guns in general - it does not explicitly state what guns can be treated how - it does not explicitly state differences in weapons you can physically carry or not, or weapons capable of killing mass amounts of people or not.

What weapons would that be exactly? My guess is you're talking about fully automatic weapons, which can be personally owned and used if you live in a state that allows it and you have a Class C license from the fed gov, and you pay $200 for a tax stamp and have the money to purchase the weapon.

Ok, good, so we are on the same page. If you can't do it in many states, and if you need a license, and if you are taxed... then it's arguable whether that's a right.

But if you are arguing that we still can own fully automatic weapons, then hopefully you can argue the same for assault weapons, and that will be fine with the 2nd Amendment.

Are you saying that an elected govt has never turned into a dictatorship?

No, I'm saying it's nutty to think that waving a gun will prevent Congress from going overboard. Which is why I said exactly that.

[EasyGoin]

And also, the Heller decision I believe found that there can be restrictions on weapons, correct?

You are correct. You can ban felons and the mentally ill as well as restrict where weapons can be carried.

That the 2nd Amendment wasn't a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

You are correct, in Heller, the decision stated you couldn't ban a commonly used weapon ( so banning RPGs is OK) but you can't ban hand guns, and that any weapon must be used for lawful purposes.

Okay, so you're saying the only restrictions found in the 2nd Amendment are that it applies only to those you can carry, whereas other restrictions are found outside of the 2nd Amendment?

Yep.

Though "commonly used" isn't language found in the 2nd Amendment, of course.

Correct that's in Heller.

The 2nd Amendment covers guns in general - it does not explicitly state what guns can be treated how - it does not explicitly state differences in weapons you can physically carry or not, or weapons capable of killing mass amounts of people or not.

To bear arms, is to carry arms. Remember the bill of rights does not grant rights, the bill of rights restricts the power of govt to restrict the rights the citizens of the USA already have. It doesn't explicitly state what kind of arms that are allowed because it doesn't have too. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That sets the bar pretty high.

Ok, good, so we are on the same page. If you can't do it in many states, and if you need a license, and if you are taxed... then it's arguable whether that's a right.

No - they are still arms. The question is whether fully automatic weapons are considered common, which personally I don't think they are, so fully automatic weapons IMO, fall out side the common use test.

But if you are arguing that we still can own fully automatic weapons, then hopefully you can argue the same for assault weapons, and that will be fine with the 2nd Amendment.

Both are fine with the 2nd Amendment, both are "Arms".

No, I'm saying it's nutty to think that waving a gun will prevent Congress from going overboard. Which is why I said exactly that.

So you don't think that an armed population is a deterrent to a would be tyrant, or tyrannical government? Why is that?

[glenstar]

Easy, you present your points well, and in such a matter that it makes reading them pleasant and educational, even though I may disagree with you on some of them. Thank you.

You ask Alex a question about an armed population being deterrent to a tyranny. Armed citizens could never have enough fire power to stand against an actual event such as that. The government would have tanks, planes, high power bombs, at least in this country, so, in my opinion, the answer is "no", and armed citizen population does not and would not deter a tyrannical government from trying to take over.