Summations Only

Vehicles are methods of transportation, and going outside of that primary use, could be used a weapons. Guns are weapons, and outside of that primary use, they're dangerous versions of firecrackers. I have no problem with most anyone bearing arms such as existed at the time the 2nd amendment was written. But now days, an individual can accumulate an arsenal that could do a pretty good job of outgunning a revolutionary era army.I'm not concerned about government tyranny. I'm concerned about some heavily armed nut-job who could pull off some pretty heavy tyranny all by himself.If you want to play with weapons of war, join the army.Moose"It's not the bullet that kills you, it's the hole" - Laurie Anderson

People use guns to kill people.I suppose we could track down all the people with guns, and take the people away from the guns (as opposed to taking guns away from people). After all, it's the people that are dangerous, not the guns.By the way, when's the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing? Or a drive by clubbing?The tool is important, and a gun is a very dangerous and effective tool.Moose

Wyoming has a very small and diffuse population. Of course the gun control needs are different from other parts of the country. Out of curiosity, how about you looking up the homicide rates in Casper and/or the other great population concentrations in Wyoming?{ABE - Per here, Casper's murder rate for the years 2000 to 2012 ranged from 0 to 8/100,000. The "8" was 4 murders in 2003. Apparently Casper has a population of about 50,000. No figures were listed for firearm homicides.}Just because Wyoming doesn't have a problem, that doesn't mean that we don't need to address the problem happening elsewhere in the country. Not to mention all the firearms that are going to Mexico. Mexico's gun problem is probably largely based on U.S. supply.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : ABE

quote:

---

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments composing the Bill of Rights.

---

SourceI would find it interesting, for someone in Congress to introduce a bill defining "Arms" (per the 2nd Amendment) as being weaponry as it existed in 1791.How could such be unconstitutional? At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, that's what "arms" were.Moose

These 1st amendment comments, and I am going to do no more, at least within this topic.The 1st Amendment's intent was to prohibit the restriction of the message, although it did mention a medium (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. IF you wished to interpret it absolutely literally, then handwritten text would NOT be protected.Radio content is still speech, and the internet can easily be interpreted as being a modern "press". End of 1st Amendment comments.2nd Amendment: "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."Now, I think that the authors of the 2nd Amendment were unconcerned about defining "arms" or in anyway limiting the possession of "arms" because all "arms" of the time were acceptable to them. But the state of "arms" has since advanced what I would call several orders of magnitude. Does not the 2nd Amendment allow a citizen to have their own personal H-bomb? Had 1791 had the current "arms", would that amendment have been done as it were? I don't think so.MinnemooseusEdited by Minnemooseus, : Disable smilies.

The 2nd Amendment leaves a LOT to be desired concerning the details. If it were not part of the Constitution, it probably would be ruled unconstitutional for being too vague.Anyway, if there was to be any non-arbitrary defined limits on what "arms" the citizen could have, it seems to me to be what I presented in the first "The state of "Arms", 1791" message: I would think that would be 2nd Amendment protected, as would be knives and swords. And in 1791, bows and arrows, knives, and swords were probably more dangerous than firearms, as weapons of mass killing.Possessing modern firearms can give an individual the firepower of an entire 1791 army, and that might be an understatement.Added by edit: By the way, re: "The vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible law-abiding citizens." There's a thin line between "responsible" and "irresponsible idiot". But that's been much covered by others already.Moose--- An argument might be made that "The pen is mightier than the sword", but if I were in a room with a crazy person having a pen and a sword, it's not the pen that would concern me. ---Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Misspelled "too".

Even assuming that your definition of "arms" is correct (albeit not so defined in the Constitution), is not a muzzle loaded cannon still a weapon that a single individual could use?Personally, I don't find muzzle loaded cannons to be that scarey. OK, the H-bomb was a most extreme example. Does the 2nd Amendment allow a citizen to have their own personal rocket propelled grenade launcher and ammunition? If not, why not?MooseFurther (somewhat related, optional) reading: What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?Edited by Minnemooseus, : Forgot to do my further reading link.

A reply to my message 3142, oh high and mighty one?Moose

The entire 2nd Amendment:

quote:

---

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.

---

"Arms", not "guns". And "arms" is not defined to mean guns. I find that definition, although it's not in the Constitution, to be acceptable. But I don't see that that definition excludes such things as rocket powered grenade launchers. What do you think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"? Destructive device:

quote:

---

In the United States, a destructive device is a type of firearm or explosive device regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, revised by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Gun Control Act of 1968.

​

Examples of destructive devices include grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch, including some semi-automatic shotguns. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.

---

quote:

---

Examples of destructive devices include... firearms with a bore over one half of an inch.

---

50 caliber seems pretty arbitrary. Why not limit it to 22 caliber? What do YOU think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : The shame - Screwed up a quote box.

Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention

quote:

---

The Tennessean reports that all firearms on display at the NRA event this weekend will be required to be "nonoperational," with the "firing pins removed." Gun owners will also be unable to take their weapons into Bridgestone Arena for the convention's speaking and musical slots.

​

Apparently, the event's organizers don't feel that the event would be safe with a bunch of working guns, despite the fact that the NRA regularly argues that "an armed society is a polite society" and "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Instead of Average Joe-style good guys with guns, the NRA is paying $200,000 extra for professional security.

​

It's almost as though the NRA thinks a bunch of live guns in one place could be extremely dangerous.

​

The gun-rights crowd has some screwed-up priorities: Funnily enough, the NRA that doesn't want its convention to have live firearms is the same NRA that believes guns should be legal to carry in churches, parks, schools and hospitals.

---

I guess it would be too embarrassing to have a shooting at a NRA convention, to take any chances.Moose

Jar is pointing out that gun deaths are still relatively low compared to auto accident deaths.I think one thing that is getting lost is that gun incidents are not uniformly distributed throughout the country. Gun control may indeed be a minor problem in rural areas/states, but it is a major problem in at least some urban areas.Moose

Certainly a valid point, but the bottom line was NOT that a shooter was under the influence of guns, and killed the victim(s) with drugs.Moose

Top Constitutional Lawyers Explain What the Second Amendment Really Says About Gun ControlMoose

SourceMoose

And the follow-up: SourceMoose