1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Sincere question for gun advocates.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AlpsStranger, Jul 23, 2012.

  1. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Because it fires grenades, and each grenade is classified as it's own weapon, you need to go through all the paperwork and fees for each individual round.
     
  2. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    That's clearly an infringement.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I should be able to pick one up at Wal-Mart without a background check.

    Deadliness is not an issue, so why not? The second amendment doesn't say "shall have proper background checks," "shall be infringed a little," or "but use common sense."
     
  3. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    No, it's not. It's a regulation. It is still entirely possible to keep and bear this particular arm. If this constitutes an infringement, then similar requirements to register radio and television frequencies, and website domains count as similar infringements of freedom of speech.

    At any rate, you're making this big deal about how Deadliness is not an issue, but focusing on RPGs which are not that deadly.
     
  4. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    Perhaps they do, now that I think about it.

    Suppose free speech only applied with a "background check" and you had to meet spelling, vocabulary, and grammar requirements to qualify. Would that be regulation and not infringement?

    Shock value. I'm not sure I'm the one to comment on the efficiency of particular weapons. Mentally replace it with a more deadly weapon with legal status.
     
  5. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    So, a handgun or rifle?

    Because this is one of the real problems of gun control debates. By far the most deadly weapons someone can own are also the most ordinary. They are ordinary for that very reason.
     
  6. GoodGame

    GoodGame Red, White, & Blue, baby!

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    13,725

    Ignore the politics, as the Constitutional reading should be blind to politics (Judicial branch, Separation of powers and all).

    Do you feel tanks, rpgs, and area denial weapons (e.g. high explosives) are part of the intent of the 2nd amendment?
    ( RPGs are deadly btw. So are automobiles. )

    I don't feel that they are as they are generally tools associated with professional armies. And we already know that the rights in the Bill of Rights are conditional in scope. That generally includes the ban on assault rifle but not an Assault Weapon ban (assault weapons being semi-auto rifles that "look cool").

    I'd say if any thing, the culture differences come down to urbanity, more so than politics. Population areas with dense urban environments and higher crime rates don't need civilians running around with mass casualty weapons, while people in more rural environments actually look to themselves to provide some of their own policing, so they defend their right to firearms.
     
  7. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,159
    If everybody would legally and easily walk around with RPGs and its ammo, but had to fill in paperwork to get every bullet for a pistol, I suspect that RPGs would become far deadlier in the statistics than pistols.
     
  8. AdamGM

    AdamGM Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The same way as anything else. People who are either knowledgeable enough (or just happen to be in authority) will make some kind of decision as to what's legal and what's not.
    - You may own X drugs but not Y
    - You may own X scientific materials but not Y

    Also, all rules are also dependent on who and where you are. They are just things decided upon, I don't see any major distinction for guns.
     
  9. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Not really. There's a reason why soldiers aren't all armed with RPG launchers like a game of Goldeneye.

    An RPG is a large weapon. It's ammunition is large and heavy, so you can carry little. It requires a generous amount of distance from your target. Above all else, it is not a weapon designed to kill people. It is a weapon designed to destroy vehicles, and it's killing power against people is limited as a result.
     
  10. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,265
    Location:
    Mexico
    Also RPG rockets fly very, very slowly through the air like a roman candle attached to a fishing line so there's always plenty of time to to spot them in midair, shout a warning to others and then duck out of their way. Or at least that's what Hollywood says.
     
  11. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    There's no "why" about it. It's a judgement call--for both sides of the argument. There are multiple conflicting Constitutional rights in play here: the right to keep and bear arms versus your right to be safe from gun-toting psychos versus my right to protect myself from gun-toting psychos by shooting them.

    It can be argued that it is entirely legitimate for civilians to own tanks, rpg's, heavy machine guns, and the like. Consider: in six months Mitt Romney is going to be President. Who would you rather have owning all the guns? The government military, or the People?

    (disclaimer: the above might be my personal opinion, or it might not--but I'm not going to say what my opinion actually is. The above only states that the argument for private ownership of massive weapons is legitimate--not what my position on that argument really is. DO NOT read things into that argument that aren't there, folks!)

    How well-armed should the Citizens At Large be?? The answer to this is entirely subjective, because the level of protection offered by private ownership of weapons cannot be measured until after a civil war breaks out in the United States. Which hasn't happened in a couple of centuries, and is almost certainly not going to happen in any of our lifetimes. However, if President Romney did, hypothetically speaking, organize a crackdown on civil rights and try to turn the United States into a fascist state, all the people who opposed private ownership of weapons would look pretty damn stupid. In retrospect. It would be a case of 20/20 hindsight.


    For today, liberals are always trying to shove the line on gun ownership one way, and conservatives are always trying to shove it the other way.
     
  12. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,045
    Frankly, if the government's tyrannical enough to justify rebellion, it's tyrannical enough to annihilate any perceived rebellion with its satellites, thousands of military aircraft, drone strikes, tanks, APCs, IFVs, Special Forces, SEALS, Deltas, millions of soldiers, etc., etc. A bunch of militias, many of them likely scattered, poorly organized, poorly-trained, questionably led and probably with a lot of physically unfit members, would have a... difficult time without heavy foreign support.
     
  13. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,669
    Probably true, yes. Civil wars tend to have the nasty habit of causing rifts in the armed forces too, though.
     
  14. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Which suggests those will have far more of a role to play in a general rebellion then gun ownership.
    Anyone want to look at the impact private gun ownership had on the Civil War?
     
  15. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    This was the point I was working towards to begin with. So when someone trying to push the limit on gun rights simply says "Cawn-sta-too-shun!" as loud as they can it's just meaningless posturing. The argument is pragmatic to the core.

    The constitution does guarantee that we have to be able to bear some kind of weapon at bare minimum. No denying that.
     
  16. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,041
    Location:
    Canberra
    Or Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq...

    Are they? Seems like the Dems have largely vacated the field on this issue.
     
  17. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    If this was directed at me, that's a bit more complicated. Since the 1980s at least, existing military complications and inflows of foreign arms certainly played a tremendous role, so "domestic gun ownership" in Iraq is not a straightforward issue.
     
  18. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,950
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Militia isn't the same as army. When I think of militia, I think of farmers being informally drafted in a border skirmish. Such availability and service would require access to small arms, but not say, cannons.

    While generally in favour of gun rights, I'm not a big fan of the Second (gun ownership should be a liberally granted privilege but not a right). It was written in an age of single shot muskets and the founders could have never envisioned a machine of carnage as effective as an AK47. Further, I don't think militias have any real place in society today. We have professional armies now. So it's written by a time without foreknowledge of our technology, nor foreknowledge of militias fading out of use as a fundamental part of the nation's defence. Nonetheless, I don't see how you could ban anything short of fully automatic weapons while the Second stands. Nor do I think SCOTUS got Heller wrong.

    More or less. It would take a tremendous amount of political capital to move on the issue, and that capital could better be spent elsewhere. What would most Democrats prefer: health care reform (even if flawed) or the reinstatement of the ban on assault rifles? Both might be good, but one helps far more people than the other.
     
  19. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    So did they.
     
  20. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,950
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Forgive me, I should have said we solely rely on professional armies today. Well and mercenaries.

    Yeah, the National Guard might be called a militia but I have hard time reconciling units that fly fighter jets and a farmer being called away to defend against a French-allied Indian raid. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it is that militia of the day actually used their own weapons whereas today they do not. Admittedly, this is my impression of what the militia of the 18th century was. I might be embarrassingly wrong.
     

Share This Page