All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 7.
  • Posted by JDCarpanzano1 9 years, 8 months ago
    In theory, yes. But not everyone is responsible enough to handle the limited power of a simple firearm let alone one with devastating power. I really am okay with the current licensing of explosives and destructive devices and I think there are MORE than enough laws on firearms in general.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 9 years, 8 months ago
    as long as you are held responsible for your property there is no limit...what's the going rate on a nuke???....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 8 months ago
    Government inevitably becomes corrupt and the more powerful the government the more rapidly this occurs. As Jefferson observed "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." If I must choose between anarchy and tyranny I will chose anarchy. The real reason for the second amendment is to assure the people can defend themselves against an oppressive government. This means equal footing when it comes to weapons.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mjsmolens 9 years, 8 months ago
    I heard someone make the argument that you could not have a nuclear bomb in your backyard. It's an extreme example, but it makes the point that you can't put your neighbors at risk with your weaponry. Interested in what other people think.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No line drawn. If I allow the government or another man to determine what I can or cannot own, then I have given up my freedom. I realize that I am not free in today's USA, but I am speaking here of what SHOULD be.
    And don't say that limiting what weaponry I can own is for the protection of the public. Law breakers by definition will break that law,too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by InfamousEric 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree whole heartedly that my neighbor has no right to demand knowing what I have or don't have on my property.

    However, the fact remains, a failure on my part to adequately ensure the safety of my nuke on my property can have serious consequences for my neighbor. Also, by not informing them, I am denying them the knowledge to make an informed choice as to whether they continue to live there or not. As Khalling alluded to above in another reply, If I have a nuke, I should probably not "be a dick", about my possession.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago
    Some of what you are looking for is contained in this study
    http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content...

    which covers the 1934 and 1968 laws.

    It appears much of the philosophy behind their passage was simple 'fear.' In any cases it traces the methods used to 'get around' minor impediments such as the Constitutional Second Amendment question.

    The main proponent back then was Senator Thomas Dodd Senior of Connecticutt and the story went - back in the sixties he had tasked the Library of Congress to translate the Gun Control Act of Germany in the 1930's and used it as a basis for US law.

    Back to the purely philosophical part. Purely philosophical has gained us same sex marriage and Executive Orders and the punitive Income Tax.

    The hue and cry back then was mail order weapons and coincided for a while when I worked for InterArmCo at #10 Prince Street in Alexandria. Sam Cummings the boss and owner had bought up as many WWII weapons out of Europe as fast as he could fund the purchase. No outdoor magazine was seen without it's back cover hosting Klein's of Chicago's advertising $19.95 plus S&H for every kind of rifle or pistol used in that war. One of them went to a barely qualified former Marine in Dallas TX. Described as a Marksman that is the lowest level of qualification Sharpshooter and Expert are the middle and highest. Side issue.

    I myself had well over 30 weapons just from working at InterarmCo.

    Philosophy never entered my head. the cost of shipping them home was more important so I bought a 57Chevy and loaded all of them in the trunk. Minus ammunition ....too heavy.

    The philosophy then if any were thought of was I want that rifle I have the money. Now it's time for deer season.

    What it is today is this. If I had the money i would not buy a nuclear bazooka. i had no use for it nor any training and it was no good for deer hunting.

    Now my philosophy is simple. I want one because they say I can't have one. The rest is just technology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would think that if I owned the nuke, I would want neighbors to know. That might stop them from attacking me. But I don't think they have any right whatsoever to demand that they know anything about me or my property.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't agree that 'any rules' make sense. Attackers are not constrained by rules. Only the morality of using only appropriate force to the attack should apply.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
    Absolutely. Self defense is an individual right. No other individual nor proper government can infringe on or limit that right. In the world of today, self defense may be faced with innumerable types of offensive weapons including automated drones, sonics, Microwaves, lasers, government attacks with armored groups. If the individual can afford the weapon and he can find it or invent and build it, the weapon should be his. There are no rules to self defense, only the morality of using only appropriate force to make the attack stop.

    Remember in the Revolution, many of the cannons, shot, and powder as well as ships were privately owned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    off the top of my head it was a collection of issues important enough to be included and yet could not fit with in the main series of Articles. the reason for that was they were meant to be applied across the board to everything and not restricted to a portion of any particular sentence. Collected by the thirteen original sovereign states.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To add something how would my neighbor know? The weapon of choice is most effective when it is unknown and unexpected. By the time you've hit a home run with the target in questions head it's time to start thinking about sanitizing not questioning yourself. To one versed in weapons it's called follow through and Hoppe's #9
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    one of the passages in a book shows the sitting President plinking at piles of NYC telephone books with a sound suppressed pYargin. All this in the Oval Office His staff said he shouldn't do it because it isn't Presidential. He laughed and said see that red button:? I can nuke the planet but I can't shoot a .22? Presidential is not what the media says it is. It's what I say it is. And to quote Patton it's not important anyone else anyone else if I would pull a trigger or push a button it's only important that I know."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That which lies between my left and right ears just aft of the Model 1 Mark 1 Eyeballs.Your Number 7. In the military it was a radio. But a Junior size Louisville Slugger is fine with me. Second choice is Ghost Pepper spray.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The 9th amendment is clear that are rights are not limited to those enumerated.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In addition, where did the bill of rights come from?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    equal to or greater than. Yet again there is no legality to 'being allowed' It's not a right granted under the 9th and 10th amendments. Therefore. It has no application to me especially since the Supreme court has disconnected the two halves of the second amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    before the Revolution, there were laws in some colonies, which amounted to-"don't be a dick" regarding dangerous something or other
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    so, no line drawn? I am in a debate currently, where firearms are considered fine, but that man is not trusted, individually, with say-a cannon-if I am consistent with the writing of the Constitution. Yet, for the Revolutionary War, all cannon was privately owned in the Colonies-mostly privateers
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo