There are two kinds of people...

[jcr]

"There are two kinds of people..." is a fun game to play. Usually, the over simplified problem is where the line gets drawn between the groups.

In the case of, "...those that support the right to keep arms, and those that don't", this dividing line seems particularly contentious.

For example we have John Rosenthal and Chuck Schumer claiming to "believe" in the right to bear arms. Schumer (and Hillary) are just outright lying for political gain. Rosenthal might believe himself (though, without cause).

Then on there other side, we often see real supporters being castigated for the slightest transgression of the RKBA -- and not for tactical political argument, but for ideological disagreement.

Anyway, what do you think of this test: You support the right to keep arms if it seems perfectly reasonable to you for a blind person to own guns.

 

[doobie]

No, there are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm all for a blind people to own guns, as long as it still means they are responsible for anything they hit with their shots. I don't want to hear "But your honor, my client is blind and even though he pulled the trigger, he couldn't see the kid standing there" defense.

 

[Admin]

Why couldn't a blind person own a gun?

 

[vellnueve]

No reason to disqualify a blind person from owning a gun.

 

[News Shooter]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/248338/blind_man_who_has_concealed_weapons.html

 

[drgrant]

In the case of, "...those that support the right to keep arms, and those that don't", this dividing line seems particularly contentious.

IMO there is the "myth of moderate gun control". The problem is
what we have right now, by any objective standard, would
constitute being "extreme" gun control when one looks at the
constitutional issue at hand. We have a system where
"permission" must be granted from the government to even own
a gun... and until that and other issues are addressed, we can't
even begin to start pretending to address anything resembling
so called "reasonable" gun control. Some people are saying
"well, people should still have to jump through a hoop" and
meanwhile, the public is dealing with "several FLAMING
hoops". It's rather premature to talk about "reasonable"
restrictions when the restrictions we have, 95% of the time, are
patently unreasonable.

For example we have John Rosenthal and Chuck Schumer claiming to "believe" in the right to bear arms. Schumer (and Hillary) are just outright lying for political gain. Rosenthal might believe himself (though, without cause).

They're both one in the same, IMO. They're both in it
with the end-game intent to ban everything, period. Rosenthal
is just a "wingman" to the nutjobs at Brady and VPC- he's just
been delegated the task of trying to do the "end around" attack
on gun owners (by pretending to be one) but he's not cut from
cloth that is any different from the other antis.

Anyway, what do you think of this test: You support the right to keep arms if it seems perfectly reasonable to you for a blind person to own guns.

That "test" would be fine to me. (as doobie says, as long as
the responsibility level required is no different than from a "sighted"
person. )

-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

There are two types of people in the world: those that divide people into two types and those that don't.

Ken

 

[P-14]

Blind people should own firearms. The 2A guarantees it.

However, it gives a whole new meaning to "point shooting" and "sound shot".

 

[Cato]

...and until that and other issues are addressed, we can't
even begin to start pretending to address anything resembling
so called "reasonable" gun control.

There is no such thing as reasonable gun control.

 

[PaulD]

For sake of arguement, what's the biggest armament an individual should be allowed to own?

 

[Martlet]

Patriot missile.

 

[Admin]

Patriot missile.

+1

 

[GotGuns]

There are two kinds of people,
The kind that return the shopping cart to that place in the middle of the parking lot,
and the kind that don't.

 

[EZEKIEL 25:17]

The Flies
The Windshields

 

[drgrant]

There is no such thing as reasonable gun control.

I probably should have rephrased that a bit- If we take
"gun control" as a concept, you're right, there really isn't
anything in the way of reasonable restriction, when it's held to
a constitutional standard. That's why I used the term "so called"
because the idea is a farce. However, that being said, even if
we had case law that reinforced every free man's right to keep
and bear arms, you'd still see the government getting away with
certain types of indirect restrictions- eg, I doubt any court,
even with strict constitutional judges, for instance, would assert that
a guy firing bullets into the air over a populated area, for instance,
as an expression of his/her 2nd amendment rights. You might
still be able to prohibit "acts" involving firearms, even if you
couldn't touch possession or ownership, could be legally
prohibited.

-Mike

 

[PaulD]

Patriot missile.

That's it? Not a Titan or Minuteman?

 

[Martlet]

That's it? Not a Titan or Minuteman?

Nope. Unless you live in an area zoned for it.

 

[Cato]

I probably should have rephrased that a bit- If we take
"gun control" as a concept, you're right, there really isn't
anything in the way of reasonable restriction, when it's held to
a constitutional standard. That's why I used the term "so called"
because the idea is a farce. However, that being said, even if
we had case law that reinforced every free man's right to keep
and bear arms, you'd still see the government getting away with
certain types of indirect restrictions- eg, I doubt any court,
even with strict constitutional judges, for instance, would assert that
a guy firing bullets into the air over a populated area, for instance,
as an expression of his/her 2nd amendment rights. You might
still be able to prohibit "acts" involving firearms, even if you
couldn't touch possession or ownership, could be legally
prohibited.

-Mike

Right. But...

Laws to prevent firing bullets into the air are not gun control any more than laws preventing the throwing of rocks into vehicle traffic over an overpass in rock control.

 

[highlander]

For sake of arguement, what's the biggest armament an individual should be allowed to own?

I've always wanted an Abrams M1A no arguing over parking spots and I would be the first person to be the last person on my block

 

[drgrant]

I've always wanted an Abrams M1A no arguing over parking spots and I would be the first person to be the last person on my block

I'll be first in line for an M1A2, just need to cough up the several
million bucks first. I'll also need some extra money to
keep it gassed up.


-Mike

 

[codenamepaul]

For sake of arguement, what's the biggest armament an individual should be allowed to own?

Given that the British searched homes for (and confiscated) powder, shot, and cannon, I would argue that any equivalent today would apply. That being say, anything up to and including crew served artillery. What would I include?

Mortars, tanks, machine guns, or any shoulder-fired missile system.

 

[Dick]

Anyway, what do you think of this test: You support the right to keep arms if it seems perfectly reasonable to you for a blind person to own guns.

If my local drive-up ATM can have instructions in braille (and it does! [think about it]) then it makes perfect sense for the blind to own guns.

 

[pipmaster1971]

For sake of arguement, what's the biggest armament an individual should be allowed to own?

Hard to say. I think a good definition is "is the armanent safe to a third party when the armanent is used as intended". Clearly most (if not all guns) are safe to third parties when used as intended (on a range, lots of space, under proper supervision etc), so is a lot of heavy artilery.

However, clearly when you enter the realm of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (or more powerful artilery like MLRS systems) it becomes very hard to protect 3rd parties from harm as there is no really safe way to use the device "as intended".

Of course, the Libertarian in me says "if it's good enough for the .gov, it's good enough for me". But even I'm willing to draw a line somewhere....

 

[GotGuns]

One of the key rules,....
know your target and what is beyond it....

I don't think the blind would know this....

on the other hand, how can you turn down a blind person who completes the required classes, and passes the test?

 

[pdm]

If you can hump it and afford it, I say you should be able to buy it.

 

[z0mbi]

If the government is scared of it, I want to be able to own it.

 

[Aragorn243]

When you sit down and take a serious look at what the Constitution intended with the second amendment, you should find that it was designed more for the people to be able to defend themselves from a tyranical government. That being said, what the people should be permitted to own should be the equivalent of what they need to defend themselves from a tyranical government.

There was no standing military at the time of the writing of the Constitution other than a tiny navy and an even smaller marine corps, if that even existed. They were generally formed as needed and disolved when not because they didn't want to spend the money on them to maintain them.

As for the common defense, when raided, the militias would form and head out to do the job.

Did the typical "homeowner" citizen have his own cannon, probably not. These would have been maintained at some central location but again, not under direct control of the Federal government but in all likelyhood the state government.

How does that equate to today? We now have a standing military, and a large one and well equiped one. I'm not about to argue that it isn't needed, it is. I'm also not about to argue that we the citizens should have the right to shoulder fired anti-aircraft, anti-tank missles or artillery pieces, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc. I don't believe the second amendment was ever intended to give us that right and I also don't consider our military to be a serious threat to our well being AT PRESENT TIME. Could go there at some point but you have to look at the vast majority of these kids being raised in a free society, etc. Will they ever fire upon the citizens of the country in an offensive manner. Doubtfull.

So, the definition of "arms" would be what the individual would typically carry into battle if called upon by the government to come and defend the homeland. I do believe this includes any form of small arms, handguns, shotguns, long guns and includes fully automatic firearms because that is the current "musket" of the day.

 

[pdm]

So, the definition of "arms" would be what the individual would typically carry into battle if called upon by the government to come and defend the homeland. I do believe this includes any form of small arms, handguns, shotguns, long guns and includes fully automatic firearms because that is the current "musket" of the day.

Amen. Lack of scarcity would cause FA weapons to be much cheaper. But stuff like RPGs, TOWs, mortars, etc, would still be out of reach for the average person. Seriously, who could afford a $30k system and then a couple hundred bucks a shot, never mind where would they be able to light off such a thing? But hey, if someone wants to waste their money and have their insurance drop them like a hot rock when their house blows up, be my guest, man.

 

[jcr]

For sake of arguement, what's the biggest armament an individual should be allowed to own?

I like a definition something like anything that fires an inert projectile.

This would protect full auto, and cannon, but not RPG, or exploding shells.

I'd like more, but how much better would we be if we got that much.

 

[Coyote33]

Trend history