News Is America Stocking Up on Guns Due to Fear of Obama?

[noumed]

In most areas of the US, it's not a crime to carry an unconcealed weapon openly, nor should it be.

Common sense would immediately alert that someone's up to no good. Can't start a fire without a flint? Poor analogy maybe, but you surely can't deny the potential threat someone poses by carrying a weapon in public. Unless you're advocating that everyone should have weapons and carry them in public to even out the playing field, so to speak.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, there is a line. And all small firearms (.50 cal and under) are behind that line. The right to bear arms, not the right to bear cannons/missiles/nuclear warheads.

Why are cannons, missiles and nuclear warheads not considered "arms"?

In fact, they are just the kind of arms that I would think would be useful to a well regulated militia.

 

[drankin]

Common sense would immediately alert that someone's up to no good. Can't start a fire without a flint? Poor analogy maybe, but you surely can't deny the potential threat someone poses by carrying a weapon in public. Unless you're advocating that everyone should have weapons and carry them in public to even out the playing field, so to speak.

I carry in the public (concealed). I have a permit to do so. In many states, including mine, I can walk the streets with my weapon unconcealed on my hip without a permit. What are you getting at?

 

[drankin]

Why are cannons, missiles and nuclear warheads not considered "arms"?

In fact, they are just the kind of arms that I would think would be useful to a well regulated militia.

You have a point. I think (it's my interpretation anyway) that they meant rifles and pistols. Cannons existed then and maybe they meant that as well but I'm not sure they intended missiles and nuclear arms had they known they were to exist. But, some purist would probably argue that as well. I'm not interested in that argument. Don't restrict my small firearms and I'm content that my Constitution rights are being respected.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't follow. Explain your charade and I'll tell you how you did.

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Of course it's arbitrary! It's like a revolving door - you put in a fresh set SC judges and you have no way of knowing where they will spit out the "line".

 

[drankin]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Are you going to add something to this discussion? Ask for definition about something you don't understand? Engage in intelligent discussion about the issues or lack there-of?

 

[turbo]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under. There are .50 cal bolt action rifles currently in production, and they are used for target shooting, elk hunting, and any other number of uses. There are .50 cal weapons in current production that cannot match the energy that my .45-70 single-shot rifle can deliver at target.

You want a deadly weapon to ban? Try a silenced 9mm pistol or a compact .22 cal pistol - the favorite of many hit-men. How far do you want to go?

 

[Gokul43201]

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under.

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

 

[noumed]

I carry in the public (concealed). I have a permit to do so. In many states, including mine, I can walk the streets with my weapon unconcealed on my hip without a permit. What are you getting at?

I guess what I was trying to say is, usually when you see someone w/out a police uniform walking with a weapon unconcealed, a flag goes off in your head saying that this person has a specific intention to do so. You can't possibly know for sure that this person is up to no good or not, so why not avoid such situation in the first place?

 

[noumed]

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

You don't, and this is what the Constitution lacks. However, you can safely assume, with good, unbiased sense, that they meant muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears because those are what were available to them. So I think it benefits everybody if we were to interpret the Second Amendment by restricting "arms" to strictly "small arms" that are incapable of causing a mass destruction.

 

[WarPhalange]

Are you going to add something to this discussion? Ask for definition about something you don't understand? Engage in intelligent discussion about the issues or lack there-of?

I'm adding plenty. That you can't take any of it isn't my problem.

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under. There are .50 cal bolt action rifles currently in production, and they are used for target shooting, elk hunting, and any other number of uses. There are .50 cal weapons in current production that cannot match the energy that my .45-70 single-shot rifle can deliver at target.

You want a deadly weapon to ban? Try a silenced 9mm pistol or a compact .22 cal pistol - the favorite of many hit-men. How far do you want to go?

I don't care how far we go, I'd just like a clear set of rules. For scientists, both of you are way too comfortable with the ambiguous definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment. I want a real definition I can adhere to. If not, then why can't I walk around with a pipe bomb in my hand?

 

[turbo]

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

You're right, of course, and most muskets of the day could accommodate balls or composite loads much larger than .50 cal. During the Civil War, much of the front-line infantry was equipped with "buck and ball" loads in their muskets. These fired large buckshot loads with smaller shotgun-type projectiles (1:3 was common) and could disable enough of the enemy to tie up their resources even if you could not kill them outright.

 

[drankin]

I guess what I was trying to say is, usually when you see someone w/out a police uniform walking with a weapon unconcealed, a flag goes off in your head saying that this person has a specific intention to do so. You can't possibly know for sure that this person is up to no good or not, so why not avoid such situation in the first place?

Though we have the right to do so, very few people do this because it makes people not familiar with firearms nervous. I think this is why Washington state began issuing concealed carry permits. I only open carry on my own property if/when I bother at all. I like the idea of being able to without breaking the law if there were ever a natural disaster where there might be looters about, or the unlikely event like an "LA" style riot happening in the neighborhood.

 

[drankin]

I'm adding plenty. That you can't take any of it isn't my problem.



I don't care how far we go, I'd just like a clear set of rules. For scientists, both of you are way too comfortable with the ambiguous definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment. I want a real definition I can adhere to. If not, then why can't I walk around with a pipe bomb in my hand?

Come on, we've all at least graduated high school here (I hope).

The 2nd Amendment seems ambiguous now, but back then it was pretty clear. They didn't have the variety we have today. So the Supreme Court will need to "draw the line" in future litigation and flesh the details out. I think it's reasonable that we are able to possesses military grade small arms. RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

 

[noumed]

I like the idea of being able to without breaking the law if there were ever a natural disaster where there might be looters about, or the unlikely event like an "LA" style riot happening in the neighborhood.

But we already have people in place to act upon those unlikely events. I understand that you want to protect yourself from harm, and I'm okay with that. But people in the position of power tend to take action into their own hands.

Let's say a civilian with a gun sees a bank robbery in process, what is to stop that civilian to raise his gun to try to intervene and potentially causing harm to innocent bystanders? Then he/she has just crossed the line between following the law and becoming the law itself.

 

[noumed]

RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

Would be pretty badass though. Maybe we've just been spoiled by Hollywood.

 

[drankin]

But we already have people in place to act upon those unlikely events. I understand that you want to protect yourself from harm, and I'm okay with that. But people in the position of power tend to take action into their own hands.

Let's say a civilian with a gun sees a bank robbery in process, what is to stop that civilian to raise his gun to try to intervene and potentially causing harm to innocent bystanders? Then he/she has just crossed the line between following the law and becoming the law itself.

I really hate these make believe scenerios. We can "what-if" forever. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and others. It's not just "The Law's" responsibilty. BTW cops weren't very effective during the LA riots, people had to defend themselves.

 

[cristo]

You have a point. I think (it's my interpretation anyway) that they meant rifles and pistols. Cannons existed then and maybe they meant that as well but I'm not sure they intended missiles and nuclear arms had they known they were to exist.

Sorry, but this isn't something you can even try and guess. All one can do is read things literally: the constitution allows you to bear 'arms,' presumably to enable you to overthrow a corrupt government, should one arise. However, since the government has nuclear weapons, tanks, submarines, etc, then surely the citizens should be allowed to own such weapons. I doubt one would get away with walking around with a nuclear weapon in their jacket, though.

I've always found it a little weird how people try and hold onto antiquated laws. Thankfully, we don't do that here, else I'd have to watch out for the archers should I ever visit Cardiff on a Sunday!

 

[WarPhalange]

So the Supreme Court will need to "draw the line" in future litigation and flesh the details out. I think it's reasonable that we are able to possesses military grade small arms. RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

And I don't think it's reasonable that we can have fully automatic weapons but can't walk around with a simple bomb. I mean, if I need to kill a lot of people in a hurry, a bomb is just better.

Pea shooters just won't cut it against a foreign military invading us or our own military trying to oppress us. Our militias would get slaughtered. Ever try to kill a tank with a hand gun?

 

[noumed]

I really hate these make believe scenerios. We can "what-if" forever. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and others. It's not just "The Law's" responsibilty. BTW cops weren't very effective during the LA riots, people had to defend themselves.

You're right, we could go on forever with those. But even the slightest possibility of it scares me enough to want to get rid of the things that could possibly cause it. Maybe I am just naive and uninformed.

If the law enforcement wasn't effective, what makes you think that one person would be?

 

[drankin]

You're right, we could go on forever with those. But even the slightest possibility of it scares me enough to want to get rid of the things that could possibly cause it. Maybe I am just naive and uninformed.

If the law enforcement wasn't effective, what makes you think that one person would be?

You have to be responsible for your own safety. Not everyone is capable to do that but most people are. Cops will tell you that they are usually on the scene after something has happened (when they aren't writing you traffic tickets).

 

[noumed]

You have to be responsible for your own safety. Not everyone is capable to do that but most people are. Cops will tell you that they are usually on the scene after something has happened (when they aren't writing you traffic tickets).

You're right, we are all responsible for our own safety, but I guess I just have a different view on how to do that than you do. When I'm in public places, I'd rather know for certain that others around me do not carry a weapon rather than carry my own, no matter how big or small.

 

[drankin]

And I don't think it's reasonable that we can have fully automatic weapons but can't walk around with a simple bomb. I mean, if I need to kill a lot of people in a hurry, a bomb is just better.

Pea shooters just won't cut it against a foreign military invading us or our own military trying to oppress us. Our militias would get slaughtered. Ever try to kill a tank with a hand gun?

I tend to agree with you. Fully automatic weapons aren't reasonable for common civilian possession IMO. Common meaning you just can't go to the local gun store an buy one. There are some states that allow you to possesses fully automatic weapons after purchasing an expensive Federal permit, Montana for example.

To clarify, what I mean is semi-automatic weapons that include what many consider military grade "assault weapons".

 

[drankin]

You're right, we are all responsible for our own safety, but I guess I just have a different view on how to do that than you do. When I'm in public places, I'd rather know for certain that others around me do not carry a weapon rather than carry my own, no matter how big or small.

I don't know what state you live in but A LOT of people carry concealed handguns. If your state is a "shall-issue" state then you are walking around a lot of people who carry.

 

[Proton Soup]

Common sense would immediately alert that someone's up to no good. Can't start a fire without a flint? Poor analogy maybe, but you surely can't deny the potential threat someone poses by carrying a weapon in public. Unless you're advocating that everyone should have weapons and carry them in public to even out the playing field, so to speak.

no, you don't assume this. you see a guy in a uniform and you think he's not a threat. you see a young guy with baggy trousers and you assume he's up to no good. you see a guy out in the countryside with a rifle and you assume he's a hunter. unless he's playing a banjo, and then you assume he's up to no good.

 

[turbo]

no, you don't assume this. you see a guy in a uniform and you think he's not a threat. you see a young guy with baggy trousers and you assume he's up to no good. you see a guy out in the countryside with a rifle and you assume he's a hunter. unless he's playing a banjo, and then you assume he's up to no good.

And you see a guy at a local sand-pit squeezing off short bursts with a fully-automatic rifle (machine gun) and you should know that he has paid a very large permit fee and undergone an in-depth background check by the ATF, the FBI and who knows what other agencies they cross-check with. I'm happier with these vetted people owning machine guns than I am with letting the general populace owning some really potent hunting rifles.

 

[Cyrus]

This is pretty simple, guys.

The second amendment is to keep you well armed in the event of an uprising against the government. To say you 'don't need an assult' rifle in an uprising is hilarious.

Yes, the government has things like submarines and tanks. They also keep them in military bases inside the united states, making them vulnerable to destruction by an armed populace. You think a military base is going to be able to stop an entire city that comes to rebel against it? Have you ever been to a military base? It's like a gated community. There is few gaurds with M-16s to stop cars and check Ids. There are no tanks on stand buy waiting to go on a rampage.

I guess your TVs must not work. Or you'd have known from Iraq what an Armed populace does every day against our tanks and vehicles. Hell, they shoot down our apache helicopters with their basic guns.

 

[Proton Soup]

And you see a guy at a local sand-pit squeezing off short bursts with a fully-automatic rifle (machine gun) and you should know that he has paid a very large permit fee and undergone and in-depth background check by the ATF, the FBI and who knows what other agencies they cross-check with. I'm happier with these vetted people owning machine guns than I am with letting the general populace owning some really potent hunting rifles.

sure. unless he looks like a furriner.

 

[WarPhalange]

This is pretty simple, guys.

The second amendment is to keep you well armed in the event of an uprising against the government. To say you 'don't need an assult' rifle in an uprising is hilarious.

Yes, the government has things like submarines and tanks. They also keep them in military bases inside the united states, making them vulnerable to destruction by an armed populace. You think a military base is going to be able to stop an entire city that comes to rebel against it? Have you ever been to a military base? It's like a gated community. There is few gaurds with M-16s to stop cars and check Ids. There are no tanks on stand buy waiting to go on a rampage.

I guess your TVs must not work. Or you'd have known from Iraq what an Armed populace does every day against our tanks and vehicles. Hell, they shoot down our apache helicopters with their basic guns.

Ouch, this is so misapplied it actually hurts my brain.

For starters, we're not trying to kill Iraqis. They are trying to kill us. That already makes it harder for us to stay alive.

Secondly, they use bombs to kill us. Something like 40% of military deaths are due to bombs over there.

Third, you think your pea shooter is any good against armored troops, trained armored troops at that, and tanks?

Lastly and most importantly, these people that run their mouths about the government being bad and stockpiling weapons? They will run with their tails between their legs the second something happens. When's the last time you saw them use these weapons? How far do our freedoms have to be infringed for them to do anything? They are happy as long as they have weapons. Let them have them and take all their other freedoms and they won't even notice. Ironically enough it's people like the hippies at Berkeley who would be first to fight an oppressive government.