Summations Only

How many times have you shot guns?

We shouldn't be talking about gun control in the wake of this.We should be talking about our mental healthcare program.Or we should be talking about the news media responses to things like this.

They did: its "keep and bear arms".

It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state.The 2nd Amendment is there so that the People, as individuals, will have arms so that a militia can become organized if need be. Your link says that the National Guard is a subset of the militia. The Supreme Court said its an individual right.

You've got it backwards. Rights aren't determined by need.Rights are restricted by need. The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.

I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that? Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.

Section 8:

quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

​

...

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

To me, the militia means the individuals of The People who have the right to have arms. This is greater than the portion of them that will be called up and trained when the need arrises. When that happens, it'll be up to the States to get them organized and appoint officers. The groups refered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution will be compromised of The People, who as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, because the security of the free stated relies on a well regulated militia, and a well regulated militia relies on the people having arms. I was replying to RAZD's comments on Article 1 Section 8, not the 2nd amendment.The 2nd Amendment prevents The People from being disarmed, because the security of the free state depends on it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Bullshit. Your point was that the amendment didn't mean for people to use their own guns because it said bear them, not own them. But it says keep them to, so you're just wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with people talking differently back then. Yeah, we have a real problem with how we treat, or don't treat, mental illness in this country.CT has some of the strictest gun control laws around. Obviously gun control laws don't prevent these trageties. Stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun fails to promote the general Welfare. You're wrong again.

That stupid ban defined as assault weapons ones that had no business being called as such, and failed to define some that would have better met their goals if banned.It was stupidly based on asthetics by lawmakers who knew next to nothing about how guns work or what made them better for assault.It was an utter farce.

It didn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with bullets? All the stuff you need to make your own bullets already exists and is in the hands of the people. There's nothing to stop the bullets from continuing to exist even thought they've been banned.

It was based on asthetics, not anything that had to do with making a gun an "assault weapon". First off, if I want to defend myself against humans then I'd like a gun designed for shooting humans.Secondly, I don't give a shit what's its designed for when determining whether people have a right to own it. Even wiki knows this one:

quote:

---

The SKS is popular on the civilian surplus market, especially in Canada and the United States. Because of their historic and novel nature, Soviet and European SKS carbines are classified by the BATF as "Curio & Relic" items under US law, allowing them to be sold with features that might otherwise be restricted.

---

People buy SKS's because they're fucking cool, not because they were designed to shoot humans. What, a tax?From Message 273Because fully automaic weapons have never been wide spread among the population.Drugs and guns are wide spread. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear. And? Most of the people that I know that own guns are responsible gun owners.The point was that making bullets illegal isn't going to cause a reduction in their use when people can just make their bullets themselves if they want to.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Simple: I can't afford a full-auto.On the other hand, I'd prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place. First off, grenades are not firearms and you don't have a right to own them. Secondly, unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous.

I don't give a fuck about the NRA.

Oh, so you were just talking out of your ass?"Destructive device" is a legal term.

quote:

---

The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:

​

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.

---

Destructive device - WikipediaStop being a jerk.

I was responding to why they shouldn't be available at WalMart...I know they can be had: My uncle has one, I've handled it. But he said he could only get flares for it though... we never fired it. That prevents the effective use of the gun for home defense. You shouldn't have to fumble around with a safe while someone's breaking into your house.