11–20 of 27 posts
For about $10k in business start-up costs and recordkeeping, and either outsourced manufacturing or maybe $100k in machine shop, you can turn $10-15 into $60 (normally) or $150 (now) all day long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.
Why not kick the whole problem down to where it constitutionally belongs: the states. The constitution is gob-smackingly clear on the issue: the federal government is not to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It's also clear (but denied, depending on the issue in question, by both the right and the left) that the states can do whatever they damned well please in order to maintain what their people feel is a we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.
Why not kick the whole problem down to where it constitutionally belongs: the states. The constitution is gob-smackingly clear on the issue: the federal government is not to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It's also clear (but denied, depending on the issue in question, by both the right and the left) that the states can do whatever they damned well please in order to maintain what their people feel is a we…
Would this be accompanied by greater control and enforcement on inter-state gun commerce by the Feds? Kicking the problem down to the states is going to be very leaky unless that happens too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.
Why not kick the whole problem down to where it constitutionally belongs: the states. The constitution is gob-smackingly clear on the issue: the federal government is not to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It's also clear (but denied, depending on the issue in question, by both the right and the left) that the states can do whatever they damned well please in order to maintain what their people feel is a we…
Some state constitutions are even more clear than the federal constitution on limiting the ability of the government to regulate arms, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.
If I recall correctly, Switzerland require their citizens to retain a service rifle at home. Something like your proposal would help alleviate many of the civic and political concerns with government regulation and bans on firearms.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, we don't allow citizens to carry bazookas or nukes. The line must be drawn somewhere. You can ban and buyback assault weapons without banning all firearms.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
e: removed snark
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :) But doesn't not having them mock and basically nullify the whole idea behind 2nd Amendment? It is doubtful that the writers wanted people be able to protect themselves against thieves, wild bears or to be able to hunt. I think few can argue against that the reason was exactly what the grandparent mentioned. "Arms" in that time's words meant pretty much the same quali…
So a 100 militia men vs 100 government soldiers would make for an even match. Unless that parity is preserved the Amendment is pointless pretty much. Nope, 100 soldiers entering a town can be decimated by 10-15 people using guerrilla tactics and run of the mill rifles. Short of a genocide (would US soldiers do that?) there is nothing the US Armed Forces can do. Look what happened in Iraq and not that many Iraqis took…
But they wouldn't march into town, they would just shut off the water and power, and then use drones or tanks to pick off the perceived leaders.
> Look what happened in Iraq and not that many Iraqis took arms against US /Iraqi government.
So amend the amendment then to allow shaped charge IED materials to be legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :). Even a shotgun will beat an extremely well trained army, provided millions of guerrilla fighters own them. IIRC, the fear was (is) that X Party will pass a law or simply arm their supporters, who would then take over given that Y Party supporters are disarmed. An…
> Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :) But doesn't not having them mock and basically nullify the whole idea behind 2nd Amendment? It is doubtful that the writers wanted people be able to protect themselves against thieves, wild bears or to be able to hunt. I think few can argue against that the reason was exactly what the grandparent mentioned. "Arms" in that time's words meant pretty much the same quali…
The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? In the spirit of the constitution it seems as though our founding fathers would have wanted us, the american people, the same rights to own any type of weapon the government has access to^ for reasons of protecting the people against (potential) attacks from…
This recurring suggestion always offends my friends and family members who are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. To say that private gun ownership is the only thing preventing a gov't takeover is to imply that the military lacks discipline, judgement and sophistication. Fortunately, Americans don't need to rely on guns to restrain and exert pressure on their military or their government. As a nation we have chosen a…
The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? In the spirit of the constitution it seems as though our founding fathers would have wanted us, the american people, the same rights to own any type of weapon the government has access to^ for reasons of protecting the people against (potential) attacks from…
The second amendment may have originally been intended to protect the population from the federal government, but subsequent advances in weapons technology and military tactics have rendered that protection completely ineffective. At the same time, these advances make it possible for even a single person to inflict incredible harm on a population, harm far beyond what the writers of the constitution could have imagin…
The only reason to have weapons (in a primitive sense) is for killing animals for food and for certain games related to specific types of weaponry (and wars, but why do we want those?). If some individuals feel the need to own a firearm of any kind to protect themselves (or to protect others from the dangerous people out there), then they should be able to buy the weaponry they feel they need/want to protect themselves and the people most important to them.
If it is understood in American culture that anyone around you may be carrying a gun at all times (or perhaps maybe not); it creates good behavior within society through induced paranoia toward people who have a mindset toward committing crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a 100 militia men vs 100 government soldiers would make for an even match. Unless that parity is preserved the Amendment is pointless pretty much. Nope, 100 soldiers entering a town can be decimated by 10-15 people using guerrilla tactics and run of the mill rifles. Short of a genocide (would US soldiers do that?) there is nothing the US Armed Forces can do. Look what happened in Iraq and not that many Iraqis took…
> Nope, 100 soldiers entering a town can be decimated by 10-15 people using guerrilla But they wouldn't march into town, they would just shut off the water and power, and then use drones or tanks to pick off the perceived leaders. > Look what happened in Iraq and not that many Iraqis took arms against US /Iraqi government. So amend the amendment then to allow shaped charge IED materials to be legal?
Besides, the military would be overwhelmed by every town revolting all at once. There's something to be said for strength in numbers.