A Troubling Ruling for Second Amendment Advocates.

[Two Thumbs]

This is a states rights issue.

If you don't like the way the state vote went, move.

1. the states rights issue was pretty well disposed of by the civil war.

2. whether i agree with this law or not, federal law always takes precedence over conflicting state law. states can give more rights than the fed, but not less.

glad to hear, I thought people had missed that.

I good to hear that a person deep in the left is against all these useless gun laws that have been put in place.

 

[editec]

Some gun control is a good idea...that doesn't really work all that well.

I suspect most of us can agree with that, right?

Like what?

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAWS rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Do you agree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some gun control is a good idea...that doesn't really work all that well.

I suspect most of us can agree with that, right?

Like what?

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAW rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

These aren't guns.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Again:
Not guns.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Like what?

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAW rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

These aren't guns.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Again:
Not guns.

It's the right to bear arms, not guns.

We have the Constitutional right to have tanks and nuclear missles. The reason for that, and I'm paraphrasing Ben Franklin, so that, if we had to, we would be as well equipt as the military that may choose to back a corrupt government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAW rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

These aren't guns.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Again:
Not guns.

It's the right to bear arms, not guns.

The issue, when discussing the 2nd Amendment, as always, is GUN control.
Any discussion of anything else is a red herring.

We have the Constitutional right to have tanks and nuclear missles.

Have fun with that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some gun control is a good idea...that doesn't really work all that well.

I suspect most of us can agree with that, right?

Like what?

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAWS rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Do you agree?

Why shouldn't private citizens have LAW rockets? Keep in mind that a LAW is going to cost on the order of thousands and thousands of dollars and is a one-use item.

I heard about a fellow who had a howitzer. Brought it back in WW2. Every now and then he and his neighbor would get a junk car, put it in the field next to his farm and fire at it. A good time had by all.

In any case the 2A seems to refer to arms that a private citizen would own, e.g. personal weapons. A LAW or missile or whatever doesn't fall into that category.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like what?

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAWS rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Do you agree?

Why shouldn't private citizens have LAW rockets? Keep in mind that a LAW is going to cost on the order of thousands and thousands of dollars and is a one-use item.

I heard about a fellow who had a howitzer. Brought it back in WW2. Every now and then he and his neighbor would get a junk car, put it in the field next to his farm and fire at it. A good time had by all.

In any case the 2A seems to refer to arms that a private citizen would own, e.g. personal weapons. A LAW or missile or whatever doesn't fall into that category.

There are tanks that are in the hands of private individuals. Arms dealers technically own all sorts of things, including fully armed fighter jets. Either that, or they manage to sell things they have no legal right to sell because they do not own them. The CAF owns B-29s, B-24s, P-51s, and numerous other fighters and bombers. One day they will have B-2s in their inventory. That is a few years down the road after they are completely obsolete, but it will happen.

Individuals should be able to buy anything they can afford. The government is quite able to keep track of anything that is really dangerous, and does so, even if it is illegal for them to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I chuckle at the fact that liberals have almost completely stopped trying to argue for more gun control.

I laugh out loud at the fact that they say they have stopped arguing for more gun control because, boiled down, it's a losing issue at the polls.

Just another example of how they put political power over all else.

 

[TheBrain]

Well, for example, imposing limits on the nature of the arms the average citizen can have, Rab.

I'm inclined to think, for example, that LAWS rockets ought not to be in the arsenals of private citizens.

I want our governments, as another extreme example, to prevent citizens from making bombs and owning bombs, or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Do you agree?

Why shouldn't private citizens have LAW rockets? Keep in mind that a LAW is going to cost on the order of thousands and thousands of dollars and is a one-use item.

I heard about a fellow who had a howitzer. Brought it back in WW2. Every now and then he and his neighbor would get a junk car, put it in the field next to his farm and fire at it. A good time had by all.

In any case the 2A seems to refer to arms that a private citizen would own, e.g. personal weapons. A LAW or missile or whatever doesn't fall into that category.

There are tanks that are in the hands of private individuals. Arms dealers technically own all sorts of things, including fully armed fighter jets. Either that, or they manage to sell things they have no legal right to sell because they do not own them. The CAF owns B-29s, B-24s, P-51s, and numerous other fighters and bombers. One day they will have B-2s in their inventory. That is a few years down the road after they are completely obsolete, but it will happen.

Individuals should be able to buy anything they can afford. The government is quite able to keep track of anything that is really dangerous, and does so, even if it is illegal for them to do so.

I believe it is absolutely illegal to own a tank if the main cannon can be fired. I MIGHT be wrong on that, but I don't think so.

 

[The Rabbi]

the main gun is probably classed as a "destructive device" being over 50 caliber. But I don't think that is ipso facto a reason why it is illegal to own one.

 

[Wingsofwind]

It is not illegal to own a tank. However, there are permits you have to have and I believe the gun/s have to be disabled. I will have to read up on it to know the ins and outs of owning one, but it is not illegal.

 

[idb]

A tank is a weapon of mass destruction.
If you make people think you have one you'll get a nice man from the agency coming 'round demanding to look in your garage.
If you refuse you'll get a nice letter from the agency threatening to knock over your house if you don't let their man in.
If you then let the man from agency in but you don't clean up the piles of newspapers in the hall that stop him from looking in the little room down the end of the hall you'll get another nice letter from the agency telling you to let him in the little room down the hall or they'll knock your house over.
If the man from the agency then goes back to his boss and says that he can't find anything to worry about your snarly neighbour down the road might accuse the agency of being useless, and come 'round with his own crane and knock over your house looking for your tank.
If he doesn't find it he'll say that you deserved to have your house knocked over anyway because you were a shitty neighbour.

Or maybe not...I dunno.