Reply With Quote
Obviously not. Why's that matter?
Hopefully they work better than the Butler Creek pieces of .
Obviously not. Why's that matter?
Yep. Ruger OEM. They work.
It's a soul cleansing experience to run through a 25 round clip without a jam.
Even a Cons utional literalist --which are about as common as a Biblical literalist nowadays-- is hard pressed to justify complete liberalism on gun ownership. Even Scalia has explicitly said that limits are allowed. You can try to equate it to due process but that really is not germane.
An easy litmus test is 'should all military arms be available to the public?' If you answer 'no' then your point becomes moot. There are arguments that can be made about the nature of the militias and the context of what militias were back in 1791 that seem ignored all too often.
Or the idea that where there are robust cons utional protections there is a diminished need for guns. If the government was effectively constrained by the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, and the protections afforded by those amendments were themselves broad, the need for the second amendment dwindles.
It seems to me that right now, with the Patriot Act et al, that 4th amendment concerns are somewhat heightened. Alarm can feed the defense of a strong 2nd amendment, to me. They seem almost entwined.
You're profiled when you buy something on Ebay. That's why you get all those damn ads on your screen anywhere else you went.
People have been registering NFA weapons for a long time. Any profiling seems negligible.
I get the concern but I am talking more about the efficacy. If the NSA, DHS, USM, FBI, etc is after you even a mountain of guns and a .50 cal is not going to save you. If anything it will get you roasted in a fire they start raiding your compound and then blame on you for said fire. It makes you a target.
The term "unlawful" is the out there. The 2nd Amendment would have to be defeated before search and seizure commenced. That would make it not only lawful, but possibly necessary (The BoR defines our rights but it's not exhaustive so not having the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean guns would be banned).
I am alarmed at the erosion of 4th amendment rights but I'm not exactly ready to borrow a gun and go postal in defense of second amendment rights. I understand the limits of individual power against the state.
I get you....although I'd take my chances with a .50.
If someone wants to steal your car, they will likely find a way. Why lock it then? Same with your home, why lock your doors? If someone wants to kill you they will find a way.
False analogy
My answer isn't "no". The public does own almost every military weapon. Defense contractors are owned and operated by civilians. So a person puts a gun in the name of a corporation, but technically the person has a right to keep and bear it, it doesn't say anything about owning it. People kept cannons in their yards back in those days.
Is there a rash of people wanting mounted .50 cal AA guns? No. However I know a few people who own .50 cal rifles and even one guy who owns the AA turret of .50 cals. He also owns an Israeli tank and a Huey. He's in charge of a war history museum, but I've fired many of the guns he owns.
You cannot tell me honestly that a very wealthy man cannot own damn near any military weapon.
Pretty much. You can point to the efficacy of locks against thieves. I want to see the efficacy of guns against law enforcement types.
It's not a bad analogy. We lock our doors because that's within our power to control. We keep and bear arms because our personal defense is within our power to control. Every control has it's limitations. You wouldn't do away with door locks just because people are going to break windows or kick in doors anyhow. Likewise you don't do away with the right to bear arms just because the arms might not save you.
Why the double standard? How about locks against law enforcement types? How did the law enforcement types fare during the LA riots? The Koreans with AR-15s saved their shops.
btw, if the 2nd Amendment is outdated, so are all the rest. The perspective was from the same time period.
Because you seem to think you know how they viewed things back then, as if they were unaware that changes would occur, as if they didn't just go through a war and large changes, as if they fought against muskets with something other than equal force.
The reason why it's false is because a lock can in many cases deter a would be thief. Therefore, it's prudent to lock up for safety.
The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments. The cons ution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon. Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?
Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the cons utional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.
Well no. For one, I never said that I knew how they (whoever "they" are) thought back the . For two, I wouldn't make that claim given how scant the historical record is. For three, if they knew that things would change, wouldn't that be a reason to change the second amendment to stop school shootings? And for four, you're making my argument with this musket to musket business
funny, i just bought one of those
All it takes is the government saying "Terrorists!" or "Messicans!" and "Jigaboos!" and every Bazooka Joe is willing to lay their life for the cause.
And a the prospect of facing a gun can deter the same thief.
That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government. Who's going to enforce that right? There's a call to do so, but a right? When you have no authority having jurisdiction over that right (the same government you're overthrowing would have to protect that "right", therefore making even having it pointless) you have no rights.The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments.
Worst thing? Ever faced either a musket or a cannon? Death is death. Those aren't Nerf toys. That was maximum force then, we have maximum force now, but the difference is that we do not have a balanced mediation ability. That's not a call to surrender your only defense. It's a call to increase it.The cons ution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon.
You assume the right is based solely on the US government. How about local governments, or even a hyper aggressive HOA?Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?
Sorry, you cannot obfuscate the situation by wrongly equating "Cons utional" with "legal". The Bill of Rights are not exhaustive, but there is a US Supreme Court in place to interpret the Bill of Rights as they pertain to new laws or cases. Though no freedom is absolute (you can lose the right to vote), the USSC has repeatedly rules that the 2nd Amendment grants the individual the right to keep and bear arms. It does not concern itself with why we may need guns just as it does not concern itself with why we may need freedom of speech. These rights are individual rights, not up for majority speculation.Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the cons utional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.
There were senseless killings then as well. Equal force is a right, it doesn't have to be an ability.
You are the one who attempted to state what 1787 was like.
Why does the 1st Amendment or the 4th not also get the same scrutiny?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions