And as noted, it's not the military we're concerned about. It's a non-military standing "army" without constitutional authority, not responsive to we the people.

 

WBahn, interesting interpretation in light of modern events and changes in the meaning of words. My understanding was that strict constitutionalists never do that.
The type of "arms" available and the damage they can do has also changed drastically from the original but no one mentions that.

 

Real assault rifles (full-auto) make great hunting rifles. http://www.helibacon.com/

That's Texas. Haven't they seceded from the Union?

Regarding assault rifles, so I guess the view is we just live with the collateral damage?

 

The type of "arms" available and the damage they can do has also changed drastically from the original but no one mentions that.

So have the methods of free speech.

That's Texas. Haven't they seceded from the Union?

Regarding assault rifles, so I guess the view is we just live with the collateral damage?

Deaths from all long rifles are fewer than those from knives, fists, hammers and blunt instruments. If you really want to reduce the collateral damage eliminate handguns from inner-city thugs.

 

WBahn, interesting interpretation in light of modern events and changes in the meaning of words. My understanding was that strict constitutionalists never do that.
The type of "arms" available and the damage they can do has also changed drastically from the original but no one mentions that.

I don't follow. I gave the interpretation AT THE TIME that the Constitution was adopted. I also pointed out the if times change and, as a result, changes need to be made in the Constitution, then it should be amended (which, by the way, is provided for in the original Constitution).

And, yes, the type of arms available has changed. The Constitution place no restriction on the type of arms a person could own and some people did, in fact, own cannons and other large weapons. Since the Second Amendment was intended not only to defend a free state from outsiders, but also to protect a free state from its own government, it was very much the intent that people have the right to keep the type of arms that would be needed to fight the federal government.

If times have changed such that some types of arms should NOT fall into those that a free people should have the right to possess, then the Constitution should have been amended, using one of the methods provided for doing so within the Constitution, in order to make that change. But that has never been done, has it. So, yes, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that I have the right to own a bazooka unless that right has been taken away via due process. Also allowed for in the Constitution, as written and as it still stands, despite the recent calls of congress critters that due process IS the problem and must be done away with for our own good.

 

That's Texas. Haven't they seceded from the Union?

Regarding assault rifles, so I guess the view is we just live with the collateral damage?

We live with the collateral damage associated with cars and alcohol and all kinds activities that are legal. So should we ban all of them.

As for assault rifles, in most years the number of people killed with an "assault rifle" are roughly comparable to the number of people that die on ski slopes.

 

So, yes, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that I have the right to own a bazooka unless that right has been taken away via due process.

One should keep in mind that the Founders did not envision "high-capacity" printing presses and the internet. Perhaps the 1st Amendment should be viewed differently as well, in light of these "changes"? Wait -- I think some politicians are trying to do just that.

 

And as noted, it's not the military we're concerned about. It's a non-military standing "army" without constitutional authority, not responsive to we the people.

So it's okay for the FBI or Border Patrol but not the IRS?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/Firearms-Authority-Of-Government-Agencies.htm

 

I'm not paranoid. I have enough guns that I don't have to be.

Me too! Two ancient 22 rifles and a backhoe!

 

Here ... some words attributed to a little known president named George Washington.

 

Here ... some words attributed to a little known president named George Washington.

Wasn't he like a terrorist or something?

 

One man's terrorist is another's patriot.

 

One more tidbit ....

Gun Control really works ....

 

I invoke Godwin's Law

 

Gee, I didn't know quoting Hitler, or the others was so politically incorrect. Hyperbole of Gun Control .... nice.

 

Gee, I didn't know quoting Hitler, or the others was so politically incorrect. Hyperbole of Gun Control .... nice.

It's not politically incorrect, it's a indication that the thread has about run its course.

 

I invoke Godwin's Law

You mean the part described thusly: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

 

You mean the part described thusly: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Anything can be abused but I know hyperbole vs meaningful argument when I see it.
I've used it many times when I was younger.


This picture was taken outside the old Varian Associates building at the Stanford Research Park.

 

We live with the collateral damage associated with cars and alcohol and all kinds activities that are legal. So should we ban all of them.

As for assault rifles, in most years the number of people killed with an "assault rifle" are roughly comparable to the number of people that die on ski slopes.

I'm sure that's very consoling to those at Sandy Hill, San Bernardino, and Orlando (to name a few).

I find it interesting that you compare the accidental deaths from voluntary and leisure activities as comparable to (mostly intentional) deaths from devices designed and optimized for the purpose of killing as many people as possible in a short period of time.
Note that great expense and effort has been made to make automobiles safer for example (often with great resistance from the car makers), which has significantly reduced the number of deaths per mile traveled.
Why not a comparable effort to minimize deaths from guns?
Why did congress, at the request of the NRA, forbid the CDC from doing any research on how to prevent gun deaths? (Actually, I guess the answer is contained in the question.)

So if these arms are needed to fight the federal government than shouldn't you also have the right to buy fully automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets, cannon, rocket propelled grenades or any other weapon the military has at its disposal?
My point is, there are already limits on what type of weapons can be purchased and by whom. I think these limits need to be tightened.
Do you think they should be loosened further?
If so, how much?
Or are we at an optimum point of mayhem here?

 

So someone who's child is killed by an out-of-control skier should be consoled by the fact that their child's killer was just having fun and is less distraught than someone who's child is killed by a criminal or terrorist with a so-called "assault" rifle?

Look at the number of people that have been murdered in just the last few years by people intentionally driving cars into crowds. What new restrictions on when and where people can drive do you propose as a result of those? I certainly haven't heard anyone make any suggestions? Don't those victims and their families deserve that something be done? At the very least, should we require that all cars be kept in government operated parking structures so that people can be checked for sobriety or that you are wide awake before they check out their car and go driving someplace? Don't you think that that would at least cut down on deaths and injuries due to drunk and drowsy driving? Don't you think that that would save far more than the hundred or so lives that are lost due to criminals committing criminal acts each year with so-called "assault" rifles?

I have yet to see or hear of one of these "devices designed and optimized for the purpose of killing people" sneaking out and going and killing a single person -- though maybe that's why we're supposed to lock them up! I have heard of people using them to do things that were illegal to do, namely kill people. I have also heard of people using knives, cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, golf clubs, airplanes, hammers, axes, drain cleaner, plastic bags, ropes, baseball bats, their bare hands, and lots of other things to do things that were illegal to do, namely kill people.

Why do you think that passing more laws placing more restrictions on people that obey the law is somehow going to magically make people that want to kill a bunch of people stop wanting to kill a bunch of people?