It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator
Your neighbor ain't rich enough to have either, or the real estate to play with one.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator
Not really.
You asked for the purpose or need and I showed you the founders purpose and need.
That hasn't changed.
People were murdered with guns in the founders time, and they did not take every ones guns, did they?
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
James Madison
Even back in the day they KNEW this was an advantage the people would ultimately have over the government, and would keep the government in check.
There are lots of uses for the AR-15: hunting, target practice(being part of a well regulated militia), competitive sport shooting. The founders knew of the need and included the 2nd.
At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier.
Why would time change that?
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shooterbrody
What was the purpose for the founders to put the 2nd in? It had a purpose, and a need. Those have not gone away.
It was a swiss army knife or todays multi tool.
A cure all for whatever happens.
originally posted by: narrator
... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---
I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.
On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).
So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.
And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator
Your neighbors are billionaires?
99% of us don't have billionaire neighbors.
www.quora.com...
At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier. Why would time change that?
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---
I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.
On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).
So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.
And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.
Well, again I defer to the original terms and original dictionary of the period to interpret the word "arms" (as in kee and bear arms). Arms at the time were defined thusly:
More specifically, a firearm was defined as:
Now, I will defer the the term "firearm" for this discussion as I believe the founders did mean that in the amendment. However, keep in mind, it also did include cannons as arms as well. And, before it devolves into the minutia, this also included the powder and ball (i.e. ammunition) as part of the amendment protections....since a firearm without ammunition if hardly effective or "well regulated".
So, firearms to them it meant, plainly, guns. So, to answer your question, a U.S. citizen (in good standing, I'll defer to that as well) should be allowed to keep and bear ANY gun they wish....without undue restrictions upon ownership, carry, or use. Now, "use" here means "all lawful purposes" as was intended.
In this case, an F-16, missiles, and nukes are not classified as "arms" or "firearms" are they? So, using them in this discussion is a failed attempt at hyperbole to derail the conversation into absurdity.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator
And as for the links you posted...it's one thing to own a tank/submarine/mini gun/etc, it's an entirely different thing to own them with a working firing mechanism and active rounds to fire with the tank
Looks like FUN!
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
... SNIPPED FOR READABILITY ---
I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.
On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).
So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.
And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.
Well, again I defer to the original terms and original dictionary of the period to interpret the word "arms" (as in kee and bear arms). Arms at the time were defined thusly:
More specifically, a firearm was defined as:
Now, I will defer the the term "firearm" for this discussion as I believe the founders did mean that in the amendment. However, keep in mind, it also did include cannons as arms as well. And, before it devolves into the minutia, this also included the powder and ball (i.e. ammunition) as part of the amendment protections....since a firearm without ammunition if hardly effective or "well regulated".
So, firearms to them it meant, plainly, guns. So, to answer your question, a U.S. citizen (in good standing, I'll defer to that as well) should be allowed to keep and bear ANY gun they wish....without undue restrictions upon ownership, carry, or use. Now, "use" here means "all lawful purposes" as was intended.
In this case, an F-16, missiles, and nukes are not classified as "arms" or "firearms" are they? So, using them in this discussion is a failed attempt at hyperbole to derail the conversation into absurdity.
So when they said arms, they specifically meant firearms/guns, and not just weapons in general? Ok, I can go along with that.
The jet is hyperbole. How about a mini-gun? An MG-42 or an MG-Browning? A random citizen owning those is almost scarier than the F-16/missile idea.
All I'm saying is, there should be a line somewhere.
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator
There is no line.
The reasoning behind the second as a last ditch defence against a totalitarian state.
When speech fails.
When court fails.
There's no problem the proper amount of lead flying can't solve.
So what you're saying is, given that they have the means to buy it, a citizen should be legally allowed to own ANY firearm they want to own?
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator
You failed to acknowledge this:
At the time when the second was written the people could keep the same weapons as any soldier. Why would time change that?
as I posted, lots of reasons, the need was demonstrated by the quotes and actions of the founders.
Time has not changed that need. That need has been demonstrated globally by nations all over the planet in the time since the founders included the 2nd. That reflects on the wisdom of the founders imo.