Question about guns

[Flying Pig]

Still has pretty big arms - that looks to me like it should be split between at least three men, in the same way as a heavy mortar!

 

[JollyRoger]

I think it should be possible to obtain any weapon that can be carried by hand. Missiles don't apply.

So you want to amend the Constitution to bring that limitation into the text?

 

[JohnRM]

Can you likewise imagine how bad those would have been with butter knives? It's the same argument that applies. 'Legitimate purpose' is simply a matter of degree.

Yes, butter knives have a legitimate purpose. A hunting rifle has a legitimate purpose. A handgun has a legitimate purpose. A shotgun has a legitimate purpose. All of these things have a legitimate purpose for a civilian.

A grenade launcher does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A tank (capable of firing its main gun) does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A nuclear weapon does NOT have a legitimate purpose. Not to mention, none of those things are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes, butter knives have a legitimate purpose. A hunting rifle has a legitimate purpose. A handgun has a legitimate purpose. A shotgun has a legitimate purpose. All of these things have a legitimate purpose for a civilian.

A grenade launcher does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A tank (capable of firing its main gun) does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A nuclear weapon does NOT have a legitimate purpose. Not to mention, none of those things are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

I agree with you, but a textualist like GhostWriter should disagree with you.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't understand how the AWB isn't unconstitutional if the ban on extended mags might be. If the 2A were phrased differently, to be something reasonable, I'd have a different opinion.

I didn't say that the ban on extended mags might be. I said that it was borderline. To me, it rests right on the edge. In my opinion, magazines were not restricted beyond what I feel to be reasonable.

 

[Phrossack]

How are grenade launchers illegitimate when semi-automatic rifles with 30-shot mags aren't? A grenade launcher can be loaded with tear gas, foam, smoke, canister, and other kinds of non-explosive ammunition. It's also quite useful for hunting, and can help clear rocks and other yard obstacles. A grenade launcher is the same size as many rifles, and is often actually smaller. And nowhere in the Constitution is it banned.

I'm not actually in favor of legalizing grenade launchers, like, at all, but the arguments against it seem... lacking.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's also quite useful for hunting

Tank hunting, perhaps!

 

[Phrossack]

Tank hunting, perhaps!

An RPG, yes. When hunting with a grenade launcher, one need not aim carefully. It can also eliminate an entire flock of birds sitting on the ground, which is a damn sight better than any shotgun.

 

[Cutlass]

Tank hunting, perhaps!

What if you see a herd of deer and just loft a grenade in to the middle? Even if the spook and run you might still take down a couple with shrapnel.

 

[bhsup]

But the purpose of hunting is food. Blowing your prey into something that looks like a dead vampire from True Blood is rather counter-productive.

 

[Cutlass]

Well you have to assume that the deer are going to take off in every direction when you fire it. And some will be further from the blast than others. So if you start with half a dozen or more, you'll get at least a freezer full for hamburger out of it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That is, in fact, exactly what he was talking about.

No, I do not think that individuals should own nuclear devices, even portable ones.

Nuclear weapons throws a bit of a wacky element into it that I honestly never thought was possible.

I didn't actually know it for certain, but I always thought that the intent of the 2nd when it was written is the way Bugfatty described it. In the past, rank and file military used muskets and swords, and so could civilians. Now the military uses assault rifles, but civilians can't... I do see an issue here, its a disproportionate power situation in favor of the military that the Founders would not have intended. So if you want to go by intent...

Nukes are a different ball game altogether. They aren't used very often at all, and the odds that anyone would use nukes to stop a rebellion of any kind whatsoever are slim.

I actually didn't know there was such thing as portable nukes. I guess technology puts flaws into every definition of any kind

My "Portable weapons" doesn't include nuclear missiles.

I think my line of "Small arms" is clear enough....

 

[Flying Pig]

Well you have to assume that the deer are going to take off in every direction when you fire it. And some will be further from the blast than others. So if you start with half a dozen or more, you'll get at least a freezer full for hamburger out of it.

And then you have to carry the damned things home, or at least back to the Rover...

 

[JollyRoger]

But the purpose of hunting is food. Blowing your prey into something that looks like a dead vampire from True Blood is rather counter-productive.

It would seem that grenades and tanks might be helpful in securing food from a Super Market.

 

[Cutlass]

And then you have to carry the damned things home, or at least back to the Rover...

Oh, no one walks to hunting anymore.

 

[Borachio]

Just so

 

[Cutlass]

Where my family comes from up in Maine they have moose hunts every year. Now a moose is roughly the size of a horse. Yet these people bring the moose out all the time. I don't really think these guys were too deep in the woods when they shot the thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didn't actually know it for certain, but I always thought that the intent of the 2nd when it was written is the way Bugfatty described it. In the past, rank and file military used muskets and swords, and so could civilians. Now the military uses assault rifles, but civilians can't... I do see an issue here, its a disproportionate power situation in favor of the military that the Founders would not have intended. So if you want to go by intent...

So you agree allowing people to own assault rifles is insane and that their banning has nothing to with the founders intent behind the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist or were even conceivable back then?

Or are you just saying people need big guns for reasons?

Nukes are a different ball game altogether. They aren't used very often at all,

There are about 4000 craters in the desert of Nevada that do a nice job of poking holes in these sentences.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think my line of "Small arms" is clear enough....

Clearly not textualist.

 

[El_Machinae]

A grenade launcher does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A tank (capable of firing its main gun) does NOT have a legitimate purpose. A nuclear weapon does NOT have a legitimate purpose. Not to mention, none of those things are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Their purpose is to kill enemy soldiers, which strikes me as one of the intents of the 2nd Amendment.