General Discussion

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

93. Your answers...

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:28 PM

Jan 2013

"Arms" were considered then and now as firearms capable of being fired in one or both hands. Be thankful for that context.

As for your tanks/missiles/fighters, etc. you CAN own them, but they are much more regulated since these do NOT fall under the context of "arms" when 2A was written. Note: "musket" does not appear in the BOR & the Articles; the much more proscriptive "press" does. Thank goodness we liberals take a much more expansive approach to "press," thank goodness (for controllers) "arms" is treated as a suitable infantry weapon for military service and not, as you suggest, a wide-open tech field awaiting the latest communicative app.

BTW, since before the Rev, Americans owned rifles in large numbers, and not merely smooth bore muskets. So that is 2 types at least.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

142 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control [View all] Whovian Jan 2013 OP

it's all part of deligitimating gun control BainsBane Jan 2013 #1

We're trying to point out two things Recursion Jan 2013 #18

two more points... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #35

Good points both Recursion Jan 2013 #45

some of the pending bills do specify number of rounds, generally ten BainsBane Jan 2013 #51

Magazines are a different matter, and I'm all for a high-cap ban Recursion Jan 2013 #56

we don't like guns that spit out a 100 rounds in a few seconds BainsBane Jan 2013 #49

Me neither. Those have been essentially banned for close to 80 years Recursion Jan 2013 #52

the Aurora shooter used one BainsBane Jan 2013 #58

The "if it were up to you plan" would actually do something; I would support it if the party does Recursion Jan 2013 #60

no, it doesn't BainsBane Jan 2013 #62

Doesn't it simply ban the AR platform by name? Recursion Jan 2013 #63

don't you think you should read the legislation BainsBane Jan 2013 #65

I have read her website. That's why I mentioned the "by name" problem. Recursion Jan 2013 #68

that summary is cursory to say the least BainsBane Jan 2013 #70

It's a one-test ban with most of the features from the 94 ban listed... Recursion Jan 2013 #71

don't you think they have the ATF helping them with that legislation? BainsBane Jan 2013 #73

It would surprise me if the ATF were helping Recursion Jan 2013 #74

I did't say that BainsBane Jan 2013 #75

I have written my (non-voting) Congresswoman Recursion Jan 2013 #76

Who defines what has a chance politically? Marr Jan 2013 #121

Handguns are the vast majority of murder weapons Recursion Jan 2013 #122

Exactly, voters. Marr Jan 2013 #124

I am perfectly okay with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep & bear arms Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #2

So if I want to follow the 1st admendment, can I only do it with technology from the 1700's Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #12

Do you know when movable type & the printing press were invented? baldguy Jan 2013 #14

The army was founded in 1775. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #140

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #19

No, not quite. It was the 1980s when NRA friendly judges nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #55

Not so. The individual RKBA is acknowledged (even by controllers) as Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #78

Recently, tribe "came around." nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #88

Can I keep my Winchester .03 .22, made in 1905? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #90

That is not an assault weapon nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #91

Why isn't it? While enshrining my "classic," could I keep a Remington M8 (1906)? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #94

Lets start with detachable magazines. nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #110

So the Model 8 & 81 are to be outlawed or not? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #113

I see what you doing nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #116

So, just another "NRA tactic," eh? Try a specific argument, then 'poof?' Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #118

ask the VP of tbe US nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #125

Actually, I support the universal NICS and strengthening reporting requirements. Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #137

So you are arguing just to argue? nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #138

Check the mirror... Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #139

Now it's an "assault gun?" Pray tell, what is that? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #115

This sarisataka Jan 2013 #130

LOL! Thanks for light moment. Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #136

Earliest SCOTUS case I know which treats RKBA as an individual right is from 1857. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #82

And we both know how right Justice Tanney was nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #89

Exactly-- and if you're willing to ignore the "militia" part, why should anyone else accept Marr Jan 2013 #123

But you're not advocating constructionism, you're advocating turbo-originalism. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #25

Misreading. 2A says "arms," not muskets. 1A says "press." Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #77

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #79

Your answers... Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #105

Glad to be of assistance! Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #114

In a correlation to Cigarettes rightsideout Jan 2013 #3

How about putting Surgeon Generals warnings on firearms too ... OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #15

How about making gun free zones around and in all public buildings like smoke free zones? appleannie1 Jan 2013 #28

We pretty much have as far as I know (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #29

For frack face the warning on my ammo box nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #67

The last chef knife I bought said "Blade is sharp; avoid contact" on the package Recursion Jan 2013 #72

I have a Ruger .22 handgun Jenoch Jan 2013 #80

That is merely the NRA/RW talking point used to end discussions on a message board Kolesar Jan 2013 #4

The primary objection is that some people don't want OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #5

see 4. Kolesar Jan 2013 #6

I'm sorry, but statistics and real world occurrences are not "talking points". OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #13

Good old games with statistics! bongbong Jan 2013 #39

So MJ is another NRA "talking point" promoter? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #81

LOL bongbong Jan 2013 #83

"Games with statistics"? LOL, it's a numerical count of gun crime. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #99

numbuz bongbong Jan 2013 #101

LOL wut? Gun deaths from semi-automatic mass shootings should somehow count more than OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #102

Your stats are flawed bongbong Jan 2013 #104

They're not my stats, they are the FBI's. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #107

Those numbers don't support your argument bongbong Jan 2013 #108

There are no raw numbers of assault weapon crime, just rifle crime. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #111

thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #8

unsupportable comment Kolesar Jan 2013 #10

I also have bolt action rifles Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #20

"a) Assault weapons actually make up VERY little crime"=NRA-deflection Kolesar Jan 2013 #43

Why is it a deflection to point that out? Recursion Jan 2013 #48

Stop with facts we are talking guns! former-republican Jan 2013 #54

Sounds like a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a complete ban on all guns is what we need. LonePirate Jan 2013 #22

Well, here's a petition for that Recursion Jan 2013 #27

LOL bongbong Jan 2013 #37

So, tell me? How much? Recursion Jan 2013 #47

The Talking Point bongbong Jan 2013 #57

So, tell me, what do you think the compliance rate would be? Recursion Jan 2013 #59

Once we start tacking on 5-20 year prison terms for gun possession, ownership rates will drop. LonePirate Jan 2013 #41

Do you think fewer people do meth now than would if it were legal? Recursion Jan 2013 #46

Twenty some kids might disagree with you. RC Jan 2013 #92

I'm sure alot more than just 20 kids disagree with me. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #96

Maybe I should have said dead first graders. RC Jan 2013 #97

So what's worse, "NRA Talking Points" or "Logical Fallacies" (ie: emotional appeal) OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #100

Sorry but being an idiot doesn't prevent you from getting a gun. dkf Jan 2013 #7

you're the expert! bettyellen Jan 2013 #117

We all do. But unless laws are passed that would actually accomplish that goal, jmg257 Jan 2013 #9

Expect the gunboarders to act like you never posted that comprehensive summary...eom Kolesar Jan 2013 #11

ok Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #21

More detail... jmg257 Jan 2013 #24

Because our last major Federal gun control law was completely pointless, because of definitions Recursion Jan 2013 #16

the tone of this OP really makes me want to answer backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #17

Pro-Gun Activists Are Attempting To Control The Vocabulary..... Paladin Jan 2013 #23

Everyone on every side of every debate does the same thing slackmaster Jan 2013 #61

Widely Used Debate Technique, No Doubt. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #84

The answer is that statutes must be reasonably related to their goals to be Constitutional. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #26

THAT's the one you pick?? Clips vs mags??? jmg257 Jan 2013 #32

The word "clip" doesn't appear in that definition .... oldhippie Jan 2013 #44

It certainly didn't fail to do what they wanted it to do...ban hi capacity mags. jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

It was amended by the BATFE to exclude tubular magazines oneshooter Jan 2013 #103

In my neck of PA people sell guns at yard sales. It amazes me how easy it is in appleannie1 Jan 2013 #30

There should be a multifaceted solution to the problem of mass shootings. Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #31

Alaskan State Troopers: disturbing scene koiwoman53 Jan 2013 #33

Police and prosecutors have discretion. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #87

AK gun laws Publiuus Jan 2013 #135

I posted on this subject last year bongbong Jan 2013 #34

My objection is the potential for "control" leading to the unjust taking of property slackmaster Jan 2013 #36

It is a deliberate strategy to discredit MineralMan Jan 2013 #38

It's called "baffle them with bullshit" gollygee Jan 2013 #40

Because precise language is critical for effective laws hack89 Jan 2013 #42

And I Repeat What I Said, Up-Thread: Paladin Jan 2013 #66

ok. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #95

Nice To Find Agreement With You. Honestly. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #98

Not agreement. Weariness is more accurate. hack89 Jan 2013 #112

My Mistake. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #119

No big deal. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #120

It's a distraction tactic nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #50

The tricky part is drawing the line kudzu22 Jan 2013 #64

Theology is out of place at revival meetings. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #69

It's what Gungeoneeers do best Hugabear Jan 2013 #85

I should probably skip this sarisataka Jan 2013 #86

If you can't define what you are legislating... Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #106

Perhaps because you can't ban something you cannot define? Duh. cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #109

I think it is important to distinguish a couple of things here. CTyankee Jan 2013 #133

I want to be able to go where I want in this town without the chance of being caught between patrice Jan 2013 #126

It comes down to one thing for me: AndyA Jan 2013 #127

Most of the gunner memes are distractions. upaloopa Jan 2013 #128

it's a common internet board trick to insert minutia instead of the big picture graham4anything Jan 2013 #129

Because without precise terminology Jenoch Jan 2013 #131

K&R nt Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #132

The Constutional Issue Publiuus Jan 2013 #134

There is no reason to believe draconian regulations on guns will decrease the levels of violence Taitertots Jan 2013 #141

Human nature loose wheel Jan 2013 #142