US Gun Laws

[giblets]

If the right to bear arms has a specific purpose (militias to defend a free state) then how does it sanction a type of weapon that militias wouldn't even use?

[Docfeelgood]

If the right to bear arms has a specific purpose (militias to defend a free state) then how does it sanction a type of weapon that militias wouldn't even use?

guess as long it is not able to overthrow the gov that is causing the oppression

[Arrian]

gribbler,

As far as I can see, any "arms" are fair game. The way I'd read it, you can have a fully-operational M1A Abrams tank if you want...

-Arrian

[giblets]

Seriously if Obama establishes a dictatorship (pretty absurd, but it was the best I could come up with) are the rebels going to be relying on handguns?

[giblets]

gribbler,

As far as I can see, any "arms" are fair game. The way I'd read it, you can have a fully-operational M1A Abrams tank if you want...

-Arrian

Well if you read it as "the government can never, ever stop people from carrying a weapon" then I guess airport security better start letting people bring them onto planes.

[Arrian]

Hey, it's not MY fault if the plain reading of the text results in absurdities. Maybe the problem is the text?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Seriously if Obama establishes a dictatorship (pretty absurd, but it was the best I could come up with) are the rebels going to be relying on handguns?

Of course not. The whole "we'll keep the gummint honest by having guns!" thing is pretty ridiculous. If you go up against the US military and the US military remains loyal to the gummint, you're screwed no matter how many handguns or rifles you have. The way a rebellion works is if the military refuses to put it down or if it splits.

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

What Mike said about not having guns here: In the same way that a logical argument is made that that if the criminals have guns, the victims also need them, the flipside is that as the victims don't have them, the criminals don't need them. Less guns = less gun deaths.

You are neglecting the purpose of a gun as an equalizing force. It is good for potential victims to have guns even if the criminals don't, because the criminal is often stronger, always has the initiative, and may not be inclined to hold back.

[giblets]

Hey, it's not MY fault if the plain reading of the text results in absurdities. Maybe the problem is the text?

-Arrian

Maybe what you consider a "plain reading" isn't plain to others? Under your interpretation the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit is extraneous information. In other words you seem to consider half the text of the amendment to be irrelevant.

[Docfeelgood]

Maybe what you consider a "plain reading" isn't plain to others? Under your interpretation the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is extraneous information. In other words you seem to consider half the text of the amendment to be irrelevant.

SCOTUS has said it is our right.

[Arrian]

Maybe what you consider a "plain reading" isn't plain to others? Under your interpretation the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit is extraneous information. In other words you seem to consider half the text of the amendment to be irrelevant.

Basically, yeah. And SCOTUS seems to agree.

Note: I would really rather this wasn't so.

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

I love it when SCOTUS pulls the rug out from under a "settled" point.

[Elok]

We were discussing shotguns. That said...

Yeah, I was referring to the shooter's 30-round clip, which brought up the whole ammo capacity question in the first place. With a shotgun, needing tons of ammo is even sillier.

My 9mm with a non-extended magazine holds 15+1 rounds, my .45 ACP holds 8+1 rounds.

Guess which one I take with me to investigate a bump in the night.

The 9mm, because it's somewhat less likely to kill the poor cat that probably made the bump? No, wait, the .45, because if your home is invaded by tons of people you're hosed anyway, and the big round has more stopping power.

[Elok]

I mean, come on, we're talking about presumed burglars, right? Odds are they don't want your stuff enough to risk getting shot for it, assuming they're willing to kill you in a firefight. Have you PO'ed enough people that they'll come into your house specifically to kill you? Are you known to possess a safe full of diamonds? Or is your wife/daughter Helen of Troy, irresistible to rapists? If not, I imagine the criminals will bolt after the first shot. Assuming it isn't a cat after all.

[The Mad Monk]

Presumed burglars that don't wait until you have left the house. That says a lot.