Finally. There is not constitutional right to bear arms.
That bit in the Second Amendment about the militia? if you have to register for Selective Service you can get called up. Ergo you need to be familiar with the weapons you will be using.
/my 2 cents
Not worth 2 cents. The reference is to a "well regulated militia". In other places, "well regulated" means under the control of congress.
If you want to practise with the weapons of war, join the guard.
Finally. There is not constitutional right to bear arms.
That bit in the Second Amendment about the militia? if you have to register for Selective Service you can get called up. Ergo you need to be familiar with the weapons you will be using.
/my 2 cents
Sorry VRB that makes no sense and is legally incorrect.
Just because you have the right to own something does not mean you know how to. As a law abiding residnet of NH I do have a right to bear arms ( i need a permit to conceal them, but otherwise I am free to walk down main street with a loaded six shooter). However I can assure you that I am not in any sense qualified to do so and never likely to be.
I would amend my prior post to say the there is no FEDERAL constitutional right to bear arms.
Think the gun arguement falls into a number of parts.
right to own
to register
and gun type
Right to own. Yep you can have one, but I want to make sure first that you are not a former mental patient (joke before people take my head off lol). It takes longer to get a phone than it does to get a gun.
Register. yep all guns should be registered with local police and federal agency. Not just a crime prevention thing, but also to help law enforcement know what they maybe walking into if something happens at the address.
Gun Type. hand gun, rifle and shot gun yep ok with that. Its when you start with having AK47's M16's, SA 80's etc etc i have aproblem with that. They serve no practical use in a civilian enviroment. Not like you need an AK47 to take bambi down. I would also restrict ammunition types as well.
This is a general observation so I will put it out there. I know people that collect military weapons etc. I can see some merit in that. But people that want M16's etc for personal use (so to speak) do demonstrate a certain amount of insecurity, which in its self is a reason they should not own such a weapon.
As someone said if you want to play with big guns join the army or something
Its good to think and question lol
This is a general observation so I will put it out there. I know people that collect military weapons etc. I can see some merit in that. But people that M16's etc for personal use (so to speak) do demonstrate a certain amount of insecurity, which in its self is a reason they should not own such a weapon.
:lol:
Gun Type. hand gun, rifle and shot gun yep ok with that. Its when you start with having AK47's M16's, SA 80's etc etc i have aproblem with that. They serve no practical use in a civilian enviroment. Not like you need an AK47 to take bambi down. I would also restrict ammunition types as well.
So... playing Devil's Advocate here.
What's the practical difference between an M1 Garand and an M16? They're both military-grade weapons. Or are you merely trying to say that nobody needs a fully automatic weapon? I can agree with that.
And what kind of ammunition would you ban? I'm pretty sure tracer rounds are already illegal.
I would ban military weapons for civie use and ammunition I would take out expandable and armoured rounds ( basically anything that can go through a bullet prove vest)
I would ban military weapons for civie use and ammunition I would take out expandable and armoured rounds ( basically anything that can go through a bullet prove vest)
The .357 Magnum round was originally developed by the US government to go through body armour. If you're a half-decent shot then it's actually quite easy to shoot people in the face.
If by expandable bullets you mean dum-dum rounds, those are already illegal under several treaties. And you can't stop criminals from making their own.
And military weapons is a bit of a catch-all term. Right now I can go down to the local Big 5 store and pick me up a Lee-Enfield .303 rifle.
I would ban military weapons for civie use and ammunition I would take out expandable and armoured rounds ( basically anything that can go through a bullet prove vest)
The .357 Magnum round was originally developed by the US government to go through body armour. If you're a half-decent shot then it's actually quite easy to shoot people in the face.
If by expandable bullets you mean dum-dum rounds, those are already illegal under several treaties. And you can't stop criminals from making their own.
And military weapons is a bit of a catch-all term. Right now I can go down to the local Big 5 store and pick me up a Lee-Enfield .303 rifle.
The army did a job on me, fifty years later and I still remember the drill with a .303.
You still any good with one? They're dirt cheap at my local store, like $99.99.
vrb dumb dumb bullets are not completely banned as some sections of law enforce are allowed to use them
Well, they're at it again 8 more dead in a shopping centre. I think some of the money they put into their terror war should be used to figure out why they keep shooting each other.
Well, they're at it again 8 more dead in a shopping centre. I think some of the money they put into their terror war should be used to figure out why they keep shooting each other.
Don't be so childish. What publicly traded company would benefit from that type of nonsense?
Interesting, revived thread.
Some of the points raised previously are either moot or misunderstood - you can't buy certain types of ammunition, larger caliber ammo is often legally used for hunting (cleaner, more humane kill supposedly) and modern automatic weapons ARE banned from sale to civilians or non-law enforcement - so at the very least, the last point needs to stop being revived as something that one can pick up at their local Big 5 Sporting Goods store.
The automatic weapon owners I know are very competent, take it seriously and are very safe. They fire their guns at a safe and very secure range and occasionally host events where the general public are allowed to watch. They legally own their auto weapons, have met the legal requirements for the local police and the FBI to permit the ownership and continue to follow the requirements while they own the weapons.
I find it difficult to throw them into the same group as a few nuts that bought a gun at G.I. Joe's or Wal-Mart and then took it out on the world because they had a bad week.
I don't have a gun at present but may get back into them. I'm going to take some refresher courses first though which I think should be compulsory. An annual handling and marksmanship test would be pretty good too although I'm sure this will get me banned from the NRA if I ever say that too loudly ;-)
The whole militia part of the Constitution was literally written to offer some form of protection for the people from the Federal Government (or British Crown, as was known before). I still think Americans have that underlying fear of government and therefore, it does actually serve some purpose. You will notice that the US army are not really permitted to operate beyond training purposes on US soil - guess what might be legal if they did start wading in to law enforcement matters?
But why they more prone to this type of mass killing? It happens in other countries but not on the scale and frequency as in the US. Either its the easy access to weapons or its a social physiological problem with that country. Personally I think it’s that they are more alienated from each other than in other societies. All that individualism, caring about themselves breeds a social psychosis that can, and does, manifest into random mass killings.