2nd Amendment

[Tero]

Why do we give idiots (the lower 50% of gun owners) guns like this that can shoot up to 20 people if you are a good shot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P226#P228

The amendment was written in the 1790s. If we go by founding father intentions, I'll give you this:


and this


and this

though that may be too modern.

[klr]

I had a discussion with someone back at RD.net where I pointed out that if - as he argued - the 2nd Amendment was about defending against oppressive government, then individuals should be allowed to buy all sorts of advanced weapons systems, capable of tackling tanks, aircraft and all sorts of military hardware. He agreed.

[Jason]

Why shouldn't he? If it is about defending against tyranny and oppression and all that it makes perfect sense.

ETA: There are privately owned tanks in America. In England as well I believe.

[klr]

Why shouldn't he? If it is about defending against tyranny and oppression and all that it makes perfect sense.

... and you think it's OK for people to build up their own private arsenals (and armies) like that? As if hand-held weapons weren't dangerous enough.

[Jason]

I wasn't approving, just agreeing that if that's the intent of the right to bear arms then the logical conclusion is as you said.

[klr]

I wasn't approving, just agreeing that if that's the intent of the right to bear arms then the logical conclusion is as you said.

But that would in turn mean that any law restricting people to buy whatever they want would be struck down as unconstitutional. Since there are long-standing laws which limit people, the US legal system doesn't seem to think this is the meaning of the original text. Or maybe lawmakers - including the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court - are a very confused group of people.

[Jason]

Yes. The entire legal issue is so muddled up it's hard to make any sense of it at all.

I'd suggest a sweeping reformation of the 2nd amendment is in order, but that'd start Seth on a 20 page rampage.

[Tero]

I don't know if we have a gun porn thread, but this is the little gun of the Connecticut shooter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ma93rt8FK8

or maybe not. The Sig Sauer was the automatic weapon
http://www.ibtimes.com/sig-sauer-223-ca ... onnecticut

[klr]

Yes. The entire legal issue is so muddled up it's hard to make any sense of it at all.

I'd suggest a sweeping reformation of the 2nd amendment is in order, but that'd start Seth on a 20 page rampage.

I'd love to see it as well, but it wouldn't stand a chance of getting to the starting blocks given the current political climate.

Whoever wrote that amendment could have put it in much clearer and less ambiguous terms. It might have been more wordy, but it would have been worth it.

[Jason]

I don't know if we have a gun porn thread, but this is the little gun of the Connecticut shooter

While I appreciate the P226 as a high quality piece, I don't think this is entirely appropriate at this time. Unless you're making some sort of morbid point.

[Tero]

I am making the point that there should be levels of gun ownership, the 18 year olds need not have full access.