Question about guns

[Masada]

So yes, a grenade launcher should be possible to own, but a nuclear missile should not. The latter is not an "Arm" in any meaningful sense at all.

It's an arm, it's man-portable.

 

[JohnRM]

I was reaffirming my own position since someone was discussing whether or not I did really mean that.

So yes, a grenade launcher should be possible to own, but a nuclear missile should not. The latter is not an "Arm" in any meaningful sense at all.

I am glad that you don't make the laws.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am glad that you don't make the laws.

I actually think the odds of a greande launcher being used by most killers is exceedingly low. The only time it would ever happen is if a person were just trying to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time, not caring if they get caught. Which isn't really a whole lot of people.

Also, "Possible" doesn't necessarily mean "I can walk into a store and get one without a second thought".

 

[JohnRM]

I actually think the odds of a greande launcher being used by most killers is exceedingly low. The only time it would ever happen is if a person were just trying to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time, not caring if they get caught. Which isn't really a whole lot of people.

Also, "Possible" doesn't necessarily mean "I can walk into a store and get one without a second thought".

Dude, it happens all the time. Can you imagine how bad Virginia Tech or Columbine or Westroads would have gotten if these people had had access to a grenade launcher?!

No, no reasonable person would have cause to own a grenade launcher.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's an arm, it's man-portable.

You obviously have bigger arms than me... or one of these

Dude, it happens all the time. Can you imagine how bad Virginia Tech or Columbine or Westroads would have gotten if these people had had access to a grenade launcher?!

No, no reasonable person would have cause to own a grenade launcher.

Exactly. Dommy, that was... a little short-sighted.

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.

The other thing to note is that while reducing the legal availability of guns reduces gun crime, removing it totally does not totally eradicate it, because a subset of the population will always be able to get hold of illegal firearms - the police can reduce the size of this subset, but it's very naive to think that they can remove it entirely.

 

[Camikaze]

Dude, it happens all the time. Can you imagine how bad Virginia Tech or Columbine or Westroads would have gotten if these people had had access to a grenade launcher?!

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.

 

[Leoreth]

I was reaffirming my own position since someone was discussing whether or not I did really mean that.

So yes, a grenade launcher should be possible to own, but a nuclear missile should not. The latter is not an "Arm" in any meaningful sense at all.

+1 for consistency. -1000 for lunacy.

 

[holy king]

The latter is not an "Arm" in any meaningful sense at all.

https://www.google.at/search?q=nucl...pw.r_qf.&fp=3fc067b00bd44afb&biw=1920&bih=953


3.320.000 google hits beg to differ.

 

[Bugfatty300]

So yes, a grenade launcher should be possible to own

Dude, it happens all the time. Can you imagine how bad Virginia Tech or Columbine or Westroads would have gotten if these people had had access to a grenade launcher?!

No, no reasonable person would have cause to own a grenade launcher.

Exactly. Dommy, that was... a little short-sighted.

+1 for consistency. -1000 for lunacy.

Ghostwriter isn't really off base here. Grenade launchers are legal to own.

Assuming they got the cash and are not a prohibited person under the 1968 GCA, it's a relatively simple process for someone to acquire a grenade launcher.

 

[Leoreth]

So it's not only GW who's nutty, but also American law? Thanks for clearing that up.

Edit: oh, I see you edited your post. I stand by your characterization of both as "nutty", that's for sure.

 

[Bugfatty300]

So it's not only GW who's nutty, but also American law? Thanks for clearing that up.

Edit: oh, I see you edited your post. I stand by your characterization of both as "nutty", that's for sure.

It was a sarcastic remark so I wasn't characterizing anyone as nutty.

But more to the point, his other assumption also seems to be correct. Grenade launchers are legal to own yet they are not a problem. As far as I know, grenade launchers use in crime is non-existent.

 

[Flying Pig]

But more to the point, his other assumption also seems to be correct. Grenade launchers are legal to own yet they are not a problem. As far as I know, grenade launchers' use in crime is non-existent.

How many people sell them, though? This may be a good case study for the market coming to the rescue of poor lawmaking.

 

[Bugfatty300]

How many people sell them, though? This may be a good case study for the market coming to the rescue of poor lawmaking.

There's "class 3" gun stores all over the US who sells them and other things like machine guns and even artillery pieces. I pulled up several pages listing grenade launchers for sell so they're not exactly hard to find. They're expensive but not prohibitively expensive. If you can afford a used car then you can afford a grenade launcher.

 

[uppi]

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

What is your reason for excluding missiles? There are plenty of missiles that can be carried by hand.

And if i build a nuclear bomb fitting inside a suitcase, should I be allowed to posses it and carry it around?

 

[Bugfatty300]

What is your reason for excluding missiles? There are plenty of missiles that can be carried by hand.

And if i build a nuclear bomb fitting inside a suitcase, should I be allowed to posses it and carry it around?

Speaking for US law, the 18th century English definition of "arms" was basically the modern equivalent of small arms. Obviously missiles, nuclear weapons, trebuchets, cannons, artillery, etc are not "small arms" even if they are capable of being carried by a single person and one would be hard pressed to find any official definition were they are designated as such.

So if we're interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which was written in that century, then we can only assume it was meant to protect personal weapons like firearms, knives and swords and such and nothing more or less. GhostWriter is pretty close to the mark here.

 

[Flying Pig]

Incidentally, you've just given a very good example of the school of thought that 'the Constitution is not open to interpretation at all' falling totally flat. There's no room for 'not interpreting' it; you either think that 'arms' applies to missiles, or you don't; both are interpretations.

I'm not sure were you get the idea that I belong to that school of thought. Or if you're just making a point, then it's a good one and correct.

Sorry, I don't think you do, but I do think that many of the arguments in favour of more liberal gun laws are based in 'the Constitution says it, and we have no right to interpret the Constitution', and this demonstrates how untenable such a view really is.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Incidentally, you've just given a very good example of the school of thought that 'the Constitution is not open to interpretation at all' falling totally flat. There's no room for 'not interpreting' it; you either think that 'arms' applies to missiles, or you don't; both are interpretations.

I'm not sure were you get the idea that I belong to that school of thought. Or if you're just making a point, then it's a good one and correct.

 

[El_Machinae]

Did I give the impression that I think that the AWB was a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Cause I really don't. I don't agree with the law, but I don't think that it was unconstitutional. The restriction on magazine size was borderline, but I think that still falls within the power of the states and federal government to regulate.

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.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I actually think the odds of a greande launcher being used by most killers is exceedingly low. The only time it would ever happen is if a person were just trying to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time, not caring if they get caught. Which isn't really a whole lot of people.

I don't find the odds low at all considering the guy who armored a bulldozer and went on a rampage or the other guy who stole a tank and went on a rampage. Why do you think killers wouldn't use grenade launchers if they had access to them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

 

[Dachs]

You obviously have bigger arms than me... or one of these

The M-29 Davy Crockett is man-portable. Does that mean the Constitution protects my right to own one?

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