Second amendment protection for nukes? Or where do you draw the line?

[TurtleDude]

Serial numbers on guns and bullets (if practical) would be a requirement for manufacturers. I am sure eventually serious professional murderers will find ways to change or remove the serial numbers, but the more casual and the stupider/crazier killers won't. It will at least maker it easier to track down the most typical type of killer who shoots his wife during an argument.

serial numbers on bullets? Do you realize how inane that sounds.

It would make ammo 10X more expensive and how about shot gun loads-a typical skeet shell has over 350 pellets. BTW I buy cast bullets-and if I had to I can do that in my basement with less than 1000 dollars worth of equipment.

you really demonstrate you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and you appear to be another poster who JUST HAS TO DO SOMETHING to feel good about yourself

 

[apdst]

In your opinion, does the second amendment permit individuals to own nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, bazookas, anti-aircraft guns, grenades? If not, where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that very few people support an absolute right to bear any type or quantity of arms and very few people support a ban on every type of weapons including bats and knives. So a more honest discussion should be on where to draw the line for a reasonable limit on type and/or quantity of arms. So, where would you draw the line, and on what basis?

I draw the line at: shoulder/hand fired, man portable, semi-automatic/automatic rifle, shotgun, pistol that isn't crew served and doesn't fire an an exploding, rocket assisted/propelled projectile.

Let's let common sense come into play at some point.

 

[apdst]

Serial numbers on guns and bullets (if practical) would be a requirement for manufacturers. I am sure eventually serious professional murderers will find ways to change or remove the serial numbers, but the more casual and the stupider/crazier killers won't. It will at least maker it easier to track down the most typical type of killer who shoots his wife during an argument.

Serial numbered ammunition will do nothing but guarantee more home invasions, by criminals looking for ammunition that is registered to anyone else but themselves.

How about we just start frying anyone that commits a gun crime? That would be a good first step vice violating the rights of someone who hasn't committed a crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

Serial numbered ammunition will do nothing but guarantee more home invasions, by criminals looking for ammunition that is registered to anyone else but themselves.

How about we just start frying anyone that commits a gun crime? That would be a good first step vice violating the rights of someone who hasn't committed a crime.

when you cut away the psychobabble, the real goal of these people is to wipe out sport shooting so as to wipe out groups that exist to support recreational shooting so they won't contribute to conservative politicians

 

[beerftw]

Serial numbers on guns and bullets (if practical) would be a requirement for manufacturers. I am sure eventually serious professional murderers will find ways to change or remove the serial numbers, but the more casual and the stupider/crazier killers won't. It will at least maker it easier to track down the most typical type of killer who shoots his wife during an argument.

serial numbers would do nothing to prevent crime,australia and england have had an influx of illegally manufactured weapons,fully untraceable.to make it worse the numbers they have are only those caught,not the actual number of illegally made untraceable guns running around.

in america most guns are traceable,this isd because guns are easily available,criminals however follow no laws,i would prefer our current system of easily attainable guns with serial numbers over an influx of untraceable guns illegally made.

guns themselves arent hard to make,anti gun people throw it out like making a gun requires a doctorates degree and using a gun requires years of training,the reality is hough people in mexico and afghanistan often use homemade weapons,shocking because these guns are made in countries with illiterate masses with very little industrial backround.but in reality making a gun simply requires basic machining,a trigger mechanism,and a firing pin,something countries that hand make everything like pakistan or afghanistan who cant affrd industrial prodicts can easily make.

 

[apdst]

when you cut away the psychobabble, the real goal of these people is to wipe out sport shooting so as to wipe out groups that exist to support recreational shooting so they won't contribute to conservative politicians

If they had their way, they would make the NRA illegal.

 

[apdst]

serial numbers would do nothing to prevent crime,australia and england have had an influx of illegally manufactured weapons,fully untraceable.to make it worse the numbers they have are only those caught,not the actual number of illegally made untraceable guns running around.

in america most guns are traceable,this isd because guns are easily available,criminals however follow no laws,i would prefer our current system of easily attainable guns with serial numbers over an influx of untraceable guns illegally made.

guns themselves arent hard to make,anti gun people throw it out like making a gun requires a doctorates degree and using a gun requires years of training,the reality is hough people in mexico and afghanistan often use homemade weapons,shocking because these guns are made in countries with illiterate masses with very little industrial backround.but in reality making a gun simply requires basic machining,a trigger mechanism,and a firing pin,something countries that hand make everything like pakistan or afghanistan who cant affrd industrial prodicts can easily make.

The ultimate objective is to imprison as many gun owners as possible, because law abiding gun onwers are a Libbos worst nightmare.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

• Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

I don't know how many times you've posted this before, and I've failed to notice a couple of things.

The only reason, really, why a “60/100rnd Magazine” is not in common use is that it is generally unreliable, and when you get to trying to achieve those kind of capacities, the linked-belt is a clearly superior method. The linked belt would not be common, if a large capacity magazine worked better than a linked-belt for that application.

• Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

And here, I think the only reason a “Rifle Barrel under 18in” is not in common use is that the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits it. If not for that, such a short rifle might be in common use, depending on how useful it is or is not.

The basic principle seems sound, of judging what should or should not be covered under the Second Amendment based on whether it is in common use, and unreasonably dangerous, but not when an item is uncommon due to technical or legal limitations such as those that would apply to a short-barreled rifle or a 10-100 round magazine.

 

[Fisher]

Since discovering that they now have 12 gauge tracer rounds I have to admit that I want to try them out. I suddenly do not want to draw a line anywhere.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How about we just start frying anyone that commits a gun crime?

A “gun crime” could consist of a citizen possessing or carrying a firearm as the Second Amendment explicitly affirms that he ha a right to do, in defiance against a corrupt government that refuses to obey the Second Amendment.

 

[YoungConserv]

In your opinion, does the second amendment permit individuals to own nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, bazookas, anti-aircraft guns, grenades? If not, where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that very few people support an absolute right to bear any type or quantity of arms and very few people support a ban on every type of weapons including bats and knives. So a more honest discussion should be on where to draw the line for a reasonable limit on type and/or quantity of arms. So, where would you draw the line, and on what basis?

Nukes are munitions so your entire premise is false.

 

[Jerry]

Serial numbers on guns and bullets (if practical) would be a requirement for manufacturers. I am sure eventually serious professional murderers will find ways to change or remove the serial numbers, but the more casual and the stupider/crazier killers won't. It will at least maker it easier to track down the most typical type of killer who shoots his wife during an argument.

Sand paper.

That's all it takes to remove a micro-stamp....sandpaper....and there's no way to tell with the naked eye if a gun has been so modified or not.

Also, you can change out these parts, so it's very easy to frame someone without ever having access to their gun.

You don't serial numbers to find murderous husbands. Credit card numbers are a much easier way to track someone.

 

[apdst]

A “gun crime” could consist of a citizen possessing or carrying a firearm as the Second Amendment explicitly affirms that he ha a right to do, in defiance against a corrupt government that refuses to obey the Second Amendment.

Ok, let's fry anyone that commits a violent crime and uses a gun in the commission of that crime: robbery, rape, assault, murder, etc. How's that sound?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sand paper.

That's all it takes to remove a micro-stamp....sandpaper....and there's no way to tell with the naked eye if a gun has been so modified or not.

Also, you can change out these parts, so it's very easy to frame someone without ever having access to their gun.

As I understand the micro-stamp concept, I have to be severely skeptical of it working, even in the absence of any willful attempt to foil it.

The idea is that the firing pin have a serial number, that it stamps into the primer of a bullet. I just cannot imagine that the number could be engraved on to the tip of a firing pin, in any way that that firing pin would then be able to make a readable impression of that number on the primer. And even if it did work, initially, I cannot imagine that it would last for very many firings before it was worn off completely.

Do those who advocate requiring this micro-stamping imagine that the accompanying law will also require the firing pin of every affected gun to be replaced often enough to assure that every affected gun has a fresh firing pin, with a fresh, unworn stamp? It seems to me that this would create a nightmare as far as trying to track all the firing pins that would have to be manufactured in order to support such a requirement, as well as tracking the disposition of old firing pins replaced because the stamp is no longer presumed be legible.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ok, let's fry anyone that commits a violent crime and uses a gun in the commission of that crime: robbery, rape, assault, murder, etc. How's that sound?

I see no reason to single guns out from other forms of deadly force.

Someone who uses a knife or a baseball bat or poison, or any other deadly weapon to unjustly take or threaten the life of an innocent is just as guilty as someone who does so using a gun.

 

[Voltaire X]

Others have probably mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the Supreme Court has ruled that firearms that are considered a part of "ordinary military use" are protected by the 2nd Amendment. That was in the Miller case in 1939.

That's why I believe the fact that the ATF refuses to grant permits to civilians trying to buy full automatics manufactured after 1986 is completely unconstitutional.

 

[Muhammed]

In your opinion, does the second amendment permit individuals to own nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, bazookas, anti-aircraft guns, grenades? If not, where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that very few people support an absolute right to bear any type or quantity of arms and very few people support a ban on every type of weapons including bats and knives. So a more honest discussion should be on where to draw the line for a reasonable limit on type and/or quantity of arms. So, where would you draw the line, and on what basis?

If you want to ban NBC weapons put it in the constitution.

Until then they are legal.

 

[Hard Truth]

Here's another way to consider the question: Should there be any limits on the availability of weapons that can kill large numbers of people within a short period of time? For example, should a weapon that can effectively shoot down a crowd of a thousand people with one trigger pull be as legal and available as a six shooter revolver?

 

[Hard Truth]

If they had their way, they would make the NRA illegal. .....The ultimate objective is to imprison as many gun owners as possible, because law abiding gun onwers are a Libbos worst nightmare.

The only difference between your opinion on the limit "I draw the line at: shoulder/hand fired, man portable, semi-automatic/automatic rifle, shotgun, pistol that isn't crew served and doesn't fire an an exploding, rocket assisted/propelled projectile.") and my limit is that I would not allow automatic guns. You have no basis from my comments (or those of anyone else on this thread) to make this statement about anyone wanting to imprisoning as many gun owners as possible.

 

[Jerry]

As I understand the micro-stamp concept, I have to be severely skeptical of it working, even in the absence of any willful attempt to foil it.

The idea is that the firing pin have a serial number, that it stamps into the primer of a bullet. I just cannot imagine that the number could be engraved on to the tip of a firing pin, in any way that that firing pin would then be able to make a readable impression of that number on the primer. And even if it did work, initially, I cannot imagine that it would last for very many firings before it was worn off completely.

Do those who advocate requiring this micro-stamping imagine that the accompanying law will also require the firing pin of every affected gun to be replaced often enough to assure that every affected gun has a fresh firing pin, with a fresh, unworn stamp? It seems to me that this would create a nightmare as far as trying to track all the firing pins that would have to be manufactured in order to support such a requirement, as well as tracking the disposition of old firing pins replaced because the stamp is no longer presumed be legible.

The stamping is on the breach face also. Smaller less powerful cartages aren't strong enough to make the imprint. Also, you have no way of telling one firing pin or breach from another, should you have more than one of a given model. You could easily put the wrong pin in the wrong gun and no one would ever know....until you get arrested for someone else's crime.

 

[Hard Truth]

If there was sufficient effort, there probably will be a way to create a practical technology for labeling and identifying the source of bullets in the near future.

Putting aside the issue of feasibility, what is the objection to doing that? To me it seems like a good way to hold shooters accountable for illegal gun use without a significant impact on law abiding gun users.

 

[Perotista]

In your opinion, does the second amendment permit individuals to own nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, bazookas, anti-aircraft guns, grenades? If not, where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that very few people support an absolute right to bear any type or quantity of arms and very few people support a ban on every type of weapons including bats and knives. So a more honest discussion should be on where to draw the line for a reasonable limit on type and/or quantity of arms. So, where would you draw the line, and on what basis?

Actually if you go back to the framers, to Madison and Hamiliton's papers etc, they pretty much agreed that no cannon would be owned by the citizens, that cannon fell into the military perview. Pistols, rifles, muskets okay, cannon no. Now could a town, a county or a state own cannon, the answer was yes.