What resrictions should be placed on the right to bear arms?

[Big Fitz]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

So, it was fine for Hitler to posses heavy weapons and artillery but not the Juden?



"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

Is Obama an angel?

.

All I know is you're nuts.

 

[Father Time]

The only restriction ought to be on felons, the insane, and minors possessing guns.

What the rabbi said.

As far as power I think the limit should be just before RPGs.

 

[Contumacious]

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

So, it was fine for Hitler to posses heavy weapons and artillery but not the Juden?



"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

Is Obama an angel?

.

All I know is you're nuts.

Since you use Orwellian double-speak, that means that you believe that I am extremely intelligent. Thanks.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What limitations should be placed upon SCOTUS ability to interpret the Constitution?

 

[JD_2B]

Graffiti is also a felony.. as is opening someone else's mail.

But, as long as we are lumping everyone together, then all felons are undeserving of the right to bear arms???

And when you say "the insane", you do realize that the ones with mental illness that are disallowed from ownership are the ones who have been hospitalized for attempted suicide, suicidal threats, or attempting to take the life of another, and that is usually not indicative of being "insane", but depressed. Do you know how many people in our Country are depressed?
And how about those people who are on anti depression medication, or have never been hospitalized, or are frequent users of alcohol or drugs? I know that many people would not agree that someone who drinks daily should not be disallowed the rights to own guns. Drinking doesnt cause guns to go off.. It probably helps, but it sure doesn't cause it. YET- people who drink frequently or use drugs often are not allowed to have guns, either.
Which brings us to the point of minors. You do realize that saying that minors should not be allowed to be in possession of a deadly weapon, would also be like saying that minors should not be allowed to drive. There is an enormous number of vehicular fatalities as a result of teenagers being on the road, behind the wheel. Not all teenagers cause car accidents, though- but hey- lets just lump them all together, just because of a few bad apples, for safety's sake, right???

Blah

 

[Contumacious]

What limitations should be placed upon SCOTUS ability to interpret the Constitution?

The fuckers just ruled that TAXPAYERS who pay for 911 and police services can not sue the city if the police fails to respond EVEN if there is an active restraining order .

"Respondent filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. .

[10] Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6-19


Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 545 U.S. 748, 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (U.S. 06/27/2005)

.

 

[Big Fitz]

Since you use Orwellian double-speak, that means that you believe that I am extremely intelligent. Thanks.

Denial is a wonderful thing I guess.

 

[2Parties]

Hell no to both. I say that if the government has the power to own something, and use it, then so should the people, including the ownership and threat of using WMDs. Anything less is tyrannic.

I like you.

 

[geauxtohell]

Should fully-automatic weapons be restricted when it comes to the general public? Should semi-automatic weapons also be restricted based upon the potential firing rate?

Hell no to both. I say that if the government has the power to own something, and use it, then so should the people, including the ownership and threat of using WMDs. Anything less is tyrannic.

That's absurd. I don't have a problem with semi-auto "assault rifles" whether they are carbines or not. However, when you start getting into machine guns that are belt feed and gas operated and can lay down a ton of rounds/minute it's insane to allow that kind of firepower to fall into the hands of the general public. Even within the military, the weaponry is locked up at all times when soldiers are not on mission.

I suspect that people who haven't dealt with military armament aren't fully aware of the carnage that a 240-Bravo could unleash on a crowd of people or how fucking lethal an M-203 grenade launcher can be.

Should ammunition be restricted based on size, penetrating power, or other factors?

No way. Fuck that "saturday night special" ban. Just because something can penetrate a bullet proof vest does not make the weapons that CANT do the same, any less lethal in potential usage. A person can be shot in an area that is not center mass, and still die, so I think that the logic behind banning certain guns or types of ammo is an epic fail here.

More absurdity. Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass, because it's the easiest place to score a hit. You have to be a damn good shot to put a round in someone's head. Shooting them anywhere else will most likely be non-lethal. That's why body armor covers center mass. It's absolutely absurd to say that armor piercing bullets are equivalent to all other bullets, because the average person could just shoot someone in the head.

I fully support banning armor piercing bullets. It puts our law enforcement officers at risk. Fuck that.

Since you are in law school, you might be interested in this little bit of criminality in which the criminals had armor piercing bullets and automatic weapons.

CNN - Botched L.A bank heist turns into bloody shootout - Feb. 28, 1997

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1. Should a weapon be treated differently if I remove the stock than if I have a fixed or collapsible stock installed?
2. What difference does it make?
   
3. Should fully-automatic weapons be restricted when it comes to the general public?
4. Should semi-automatic weapons also be restricted based upon the potential firing rate?
   
5. Should ammunition be restricted based on size, penetrating power, or other factors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZfNOlAvXg

1) No it shouldn't
2) It makes it more transportable and concealable to be collapsable, but thats ok with me
3) No but there should be special training and intense background checks for it.
4) No
5) No, with the exception of armor penatrating ammunition..that should be reserved for law enforcement/military.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What limitations should be placed upon SCOTUS ability to interpret the Constitution?

The fuckers just ruled that TAXPAYERS who pay for 911 and police services can not sue the city if the police fails to respond EVEN if there is an active restraining order .

"Respondent filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. .

[10] Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6-19


Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 545 U.S. 748, 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (U.S. 06/27/2005)

.

Amazing.

KSM gets to go to criminal court

 

[Father Time]

Graffiti is also a felony.. as is opening someone else's mail.

But, as long as we are lumping everyone together, then all felons are undeserving of the right to bear arms???

And when you say "the insane", you do realize that the ones with mental illness that are disallowed from ownership are the ones who have been hospitalized for attempted suicide, suicidal threats, or attempting to take the life of another, and that is usually not indicative of being "insane", but depressed. Do you know how many people in our Country are depressed?
And how about those people who are on anti depression medication, or have never been hospitalized, or are frequent users of alcohol or drugs? I know that many people would not agree that someone who drinks daily should not be disallowed the rights to own guns. Drinking doesnt cause guns to go off.. It probably helps, but it sure doesn't cause it. YET- people who drink frequently or use drugs often are not allowed to have guns, either.
Which brings us to the point of minors. You do realize that saying that minors should not be allowed to be in possession of a deadly weapon, would also be like saying that minors should not be allowed to drive. There is an enormous number of vehicular fatalities as a result of teenagers being on the road, behind the wheel. Not all teenagers cause car accidents, though- but hey- lets just lump them all together, just because of a few bad apples, for safety's sake, right???

Blah

I did not know such minor crimes can be considered felonies, I do not think opening someone else's mail should be grounds for permanent loss of the right to own guns (same with graffitti).

And as for insane I mean the legal term, as in they can't be held responsible for their actions (not even Jeffrey Dahmer fits the legal definition of insane).

Also please don't use so many double negatives

"I know that many people would not agree that someone who drinks daily should not be disallowed the rights to own guns."

it's confusing.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's confusing because she's confused, unable to segregate out and make distinctions. That leads her to make absurd points like someone who has a few a drinks a day is in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I smell the stench of Libertarianism afoot.....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I used to think that some restrictions were not a bad idea. But having been in the business some time I see that most restrictions are ineffective and they engender a huge bureaucracy to administer them. Said bureaucracy has tendencies to power grabs and putting innocent people in jail. The downside is not worht the upside.
The only restriction ought to be on felons, the insane, and minors possessing guns.

Do we need RPGs in every house?

Of course, the militias need them, to defends the People form the Fed (the reason the 2nd amendment exists).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What about nuclear weapons....should they be legal?

Or smallpox bombs?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

If you defend the 2nd amendment on the grounds upon which is was originally justified, you must admit that we'd need heavy weapons to stop the US army.

 

[slackjawed]

If I can afford to buy it, or have the ability to build it, then I should be able to legally own it.
That includes rpgs, nukes, or any future weapon that may exist.

I am not a libertarian-don't belong to the libertarian party. Libertarian ideals come the closest to my ideals of any party.
I used to be an anarchist but the meetings were so disorganized I had to drop out.

 

[Samson]

It's confusing because she's confused, unable to segregate out and make distinctions. That leads her to make absurd points like someone who has a few a drinks a day is in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I smell the stench of Libertarianism afoot.....

Libertarianism would simply ask for a vote to ammend the constitution spelling our exactly what the "Right to Bear Arms" means.

But no Republican or Democrat has anywhere near the balls to ever make this happen.

 

[Father Time]

It's confusing because she's confused, unable to segregate out and make distinctions. That leads her to make absurd points like someone who has a few a drinks a day is in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I smell the stench of Libertarianism afoot.....

Or perhaps she didn't realize I meant the legal term insane vs the layman's term.

Although I wouldn't object much to keeping guns out the hands of people with delusions.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you defend the 2nd amendment on the grounds upon which is was originally justified, you must admit that we'd need heavy weapons to stop the US army.

And a lot of wishful thinking.