US Gun Laws

[Asher]

What's interesting is I think that in keeping with the true spirit of the constitution, they should be allowed to. The reason guns were allowed was because at the time it represented state of the art weaponry, which did make it feasible for citizens to protect themselves from the government.

Unless citizens can arm themselves with all the weaponry the US government has access to, the spirit of the constitution is not being adhered to.

Which says more about how crazy it is than anything else.

[Felch]

I'm cool with people owning all of those things. If we could trust Stalin the mass murderer with nukes, why can't I be trusted with them?

[Hauldren Collider]

Look at this American Patriot, exercising his right to bear arms while the government struck him dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson#Tank_rampage

Wait, what? Where do you get the idea that this falls under right to bear arms? Dude stole a tank. That's not legal.

[Hauldren Collider]

Should people be able to buy cruise missiles, jet fighters, and nuclear weapons?

Maybe I shouldn't promote the strawman, but is there anyone who can even afford these things? And then, if there is, is there anyone who would sell them to you?

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, I think there is a legal distinction between "arms" and "bombs" but I'm not sure.

[Asher]

Wait, what? Where do you get the idea that this falls under right to bear arms? Dude stole a tank. That's not legal.

How is a tank not categorized as arms?

The fact that your current laws are needlessly specific is the point.

[Asher]

Maybe I shouldn't promote the strawman, but is there anyone who can even afford these things? And then, if there is, is there anyone who would sell them to you?

Of course, there are many billionaires.

And why wouldn't private defense companies sell merchandise to someone who would pay for it?

[Asher]

Also, I think there is a legal distinction between "arms" and "bombs" but I'm not sure.

Read the 2nd amendment. Far as I know it makes no such distinction, just says people have the right to bear "arms".

"Arms" means weaponry, it need not only mean firearms. The arbitrary nature of the US' enforcement of the amendment is what I'm pointing out.

[DinoDoc]

How is that different from any of the other portions of the Bill of Rights none of which are unlimited rights?

[Asher]

Now that you concede there can be limits to constitutional rights, we can agree it's more than legal to severely restrict firearms. Just like we severely restrict other arms like tanks and jet fighters.

[Felch]

Limits to rights only exist to protect people from abuse of those rights. My right to free speech is limited in that I can't make false claims about a product I'm selling. There are also limits to people inciting violence or panic.

We limit the right to bear arms by making it illegal to shoot people. There are other sensible limits, for example, you can't buy a gun if you have a violent criminal history, or if you are a habitual drunkard. But I see nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen having an RPG-7 next to his selective fire rifle.

The problem with your logic is that we don't "severely restrict" the freedom to assemble, or to be secure in your belongings against unlawful searches and seizures. Limitations on basic freedoms are taken very seriously in this country. It's better to have a few thousand people die a year, than it would be to have severely restricted freedom of speech.

[Asher]

Limits to rights only exist to protect people from abuse of those rights.

So people should be able to own combat tanks, jet fighters, and nuclear weapons until they show that they abuse them.

Though, if the point of the amendment is to protect folks from an abusive government, can't the government just deem their enemies abusing the right and revoke the right to bear arms?

Oh, this is messy.

[SlowwHand]

Out of the limits of my budget.

[Elok]

But I see nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen having an RPG-7 next to his selective fire rifle.

Just to be clear, the fact that he has no reason to possess such a weapon, and basically no legal way of using it outside of "target practice" at a bomb range, is irrelevant to you?

[Felch]

When self-defense becomes illegal, let me know.