Whatever you can afford.
Dependant on nothing at all.
Of course all the law concerning who / what you shoot / blow up apply. Doesnt matter if its a butter knife or a stinger, if you kill without cause youre going down.
Meh. There is no reason or cause for disagreement about the founding fathers intent as their words were as clear as can be. Those that are confused are deliberately confused, because they WANT the intent to be something other than what it so clearly and obviously was.There is disagreement about what the founders intended and why. Rather than get into a debate about what they meant, I'd rather get into a debate about what our rights should be.
Can you present your position and why you feel that way? It's ok if it is also the founder's position, just put it in your own words.
So, for you it's tied to the right to personal defense. I think that's sensible way to approach it. Sporting uses might also be important to a lot of people, but I suppose the right to practice certain sports is not something that rises to the level of requiring constitutional protection.
The crab cakes on the west coast aren't even close to the crab cakes you get on the east coast.
It's like pizza, I didn't know what a real pizza was until I visited New York.
There is disagreement about what the founders intended and why. Rather than get into a debate about what they meant, I'd rather get into a debate about what our rights should be.
Can you present your position and why you feel that way? It's ok if it is also the founder's position, just put it in your own words.
For arms? Any caliber, any action (including full auto), any magazine capacity, open or concealed, no permit required.
For ordnance, permit required for anything other than common explosives (tannerite, fireworks, etc..) while on planet, off Earth all explosives without permit.
Is the theory behind this view that weapons are tools and thus morally neutral and it's what you do with those tools that may or may not deserve punishment?
The question posed in the OP points out the root of the problem. The Constitution was not written from the perspective of the government but from the perspective of the people, and I would not have it any other way. Which is why the current government needs to go **** themselves.
The current administration seems to have no problem of doing that to themselves, but why are they trying to **** the American people and the Constitution at the same time ?
That's an unsophisticated answer. You mean, a tank, ICBM, nuclear bomb, etc?
This requires further explenation.
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
This is the problem with modern thinking on rights. Rather than a free person justifying why they should have a right, the government needs a clear and compelling reason why I shouldn't. If you want a free and just society, put restrictions on governments, not on people. After all, the biggest threat to your safety is an unfettered government.
That is the point of the bill of rights, to put restrictions on the government. But you need to be able to justify why the government should be restricted from passing laws related to weaponry. Thus the question of what your rights should be.
Wrong. The Constitution, and indeed the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on government, as you pointed out. If the document is a restriction on their powers, the onus is on them to provide the need for the law, not for me to disprove the need for it.
I am with TurtleDude. The standard should be that any free citizen should be able to own, purchase, and carry-- openly or concealed, without a permit-- any weapon that is allowed for use by civilian law enforcement, or that is issued to individual infantry soldiers. This right should not be subject to any training requirement, license, fee or other infringement (except, possibly, proving that one is a lawful resident and/or citizen) and should be inalienable except for the duration of any court-ordered institutional confinement.
This is in recognition that the free citizen is not subordinate to the State, but the key component making up the State, and that it is his consent alone that authorizes the State to, itself, bear arms in defense of its laws and territories.
That is the point of the bill of rights, to put restrictions on the government. But you need to be able to justify why the government should be restricted from passing laws related to weaponry. Thus the question of what your rights should be.
Right, but I'm not asking which laws should or should not be passed. I'm asking what rights you should have in regards to weapons. Of course if we wanted to pass laws against ownership of certain weaponry, we would have to justify those laws. But that's the point of the bill of rights, to stop the government from passing those laws even if the need for the law exists (and is justified).
You can argue that there is nothing special about firearms ownership if you want. That's fine. But that's the equivalent of saying it should not be a constitutionally protected right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?