Why aren't people allowed to mount 80 mm guns on their homes? Or rocket launchers? Why can't people use their 2nd amendment rights to build nuclear arms in order to defend themselves?
1. Because 40mm cannons are better. 2. I don't know of any firearms regulation on nuclear weapons. do you?
That's just honestly insane, it's asking for problems. The world is going to continue to develop, and those developments will bring with them circumstances that could not possibly be anticipated by the group of people who wrote the bill of rights. What you've said here sounds like you're talking about a religion rather than a free society. The Bill of Rights have been good to America, why are you now accepting that it's ok for additional people to die just to have this trivial right in place? Have you looked at it the other way around? What if you didn't have this right and had to push for it knowing full well that more people would die as a result. Would you do it? Would you tell a poor family that you think everyone should have this right, knowing full well that the "bullies" in the neighbourhood are going to abuse this right to engage in gang-related crime? Do you think anyone would believe that it's necessary or do you think there would be adjustments in lifestyle and technology to accomodate that security gap which you're trying to protect? Don't you think less thieves would be armed if they didn't expect the home-owner would be armed? Don't you think that would result in less death, and roughly the same amount of theft? So confusing..
There is a method in place to deal with that. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, 17 outside of the Bill of Rights. If one of the amendments becomes unwanted, it can be repealed, as the 18th Amendment was. I don't see any of the Bill of Rights getting repealed for a good long time though, because people are pretty happy with them.
I understand that this is the case, but I don't understand how/why people are pretty happy with this one. A friend was explaining today that self-defense is just the official reason give nto support this, but the real reason is because large pockets of the population always want to have the option to take the fight to the government in case it goes rogue. Is there any truth to that?
Mathloom, I've been having this discussion a LOT with people recently in the San Francisco area. My more liberal friends, and some friends who grew up overseas, just cannot understand the logic for wanting guns so badly. As the local moderate, who grew up in Texas, people turn to me for answers. I don't think any of the "arguments" really make sense. 1. Self defense. The statistics don't really support this, and gun owners know it. I do think there's an emotional tie here. Every time my dad says he wishes I had a gun, he'll ask "what if somebody breaks in while you're home?" He's very sincere, and I can even get in that mindset of wanting to defend my wife and home if someone broke in. 2. Being armed against the gub'ment. You can hear a lot of nonsense about this, but nobody with brains is really thinking too hard (and definitely not clearly) about armed resistance against the feds.* So you get these emotional arguments which strain logic. This is no knock on gun owners (and I was a gun owner for most of my life, probably will be again.) Asking Americans about guns is like asking people in Houston why they like tortillas with spicy Mexican food. What I mean is that owning a gun is deeply cultural, and it goes way back, IMHO. I would need to be more of a historian to map that out, and we could talk frontiers, homesteaders, blah blah. To one (beautiful) French person I know, who was incensed by people buying guns, I said, "why do you need to bake? carbs are bad. quit making pastries, even Tart Tartin." Not a good analogy, but it's cultural, and she is an amazing baker. She still thinks we are nuts and is probably right in part.
There's literally dozens of sections of 18 U.S.C. that prohibit trafficking, possession, use of nuclear materials, - so yeah, I do.
My guess is they prohibit me making a reactor just as much as a weapon right? So are they about weapons "firearms regulation" or nuclear material?
depends Apparently there were two versions of this right that were written at the time. One with the word "people" capitalized and one lower case. The debate is about whether the framers were speaking as a collective people or the individual.
Thanks, that's a good response. I get that. It's probably something deeply ingrained by now. Off topic, but carbs are not bad. You just have to think of them as a kind of weapon, and use them wisely. Plus obviously there are good carbs and bad carbs.
Sounds like somebody had a croissant this morning. And rtsy, just for you, in my best Mel Gibson scream: FREEEEEEDOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!
Long thread hard to read on my phone but has anybody discussed Mexico and their gun laws? Some of the strictest in the world so the only people with access to them is the Zetas and other drug gangs. I dont think a state like Texas could have Ciudad Juárez scenario. The people here could defend themselves and their families unlike the citizens of Juarez who are basically at the mercy of criminals. For me when I was younger, I was shocked when my teacher explained that we should never get in a fight and if it happens, don't defend yourselves and fight back just get a teacher afterwards and they will handle it. That to me was insanity at its finest. Its hard to explain, I WANT to be able to defend myself and my family and I dont trust the the state and local governments enough to hand over all the tools and laws for them to do it. Those rights were granted to me by the constitution of the United States, the reason we have people all over the world willing to do anything to get here.
He could also just say "asspoops buttdongs." Because it would have about as much genuine meaning as saying "freedom." That word has been so overused and adulterated by partisans that it has really ceased to mean anything. If you disagree, please give me YOUR definition (in your own words) of it.
What statistics? The statistics that include suicides and intentional murders within the family when they say a member of the household is more likely to be shot than an intruder? If I want to commit suicide, that doesn't make a gun in the home more dangerous for people who don't want to commit suicide. If you murder your wife, that doesn't make a gun in the home more dangerous for non-murderous families. They include those numbers because using only accidental shootings (kid got their hands on the gun or family member was mistaken for intruder) the numbers don't quite fit their agenda as well. The statistics that can't accurately measure the times a gun is used in self-defense without anyone getting shot, so just ignore that ever happening? I suppose it is possible brandishing a gun has never saved a life or stopped a crime from being committed. I suppose it is possible no one has ever taken a shot at an intruder and missed, sending him fleeing into the night (just like in Boyz n the Hood). I just don't personally think it is likely that neither of those things happen. I don't put a lot of stock in those statistics, as they are a great example of the famous Mark Twain quote. I would love to see some stats that aren't afflicted with those problems. Better yet, how about a simple comparison between legitimate uses and actual accidental injuries or deaths. I think it will become readily apparent that having a gun in the home is far less dangerous than the anti-gun crowd would like to make it out to be.
Still waiting for you, or anybody else, to make an argument against regulation of extended-capacity magazines. Your own words would be preferable, as I have already demonstrated the poor quality of the articles you enjoy posting here.
