Replies

mamelukesabre said: "If so you object to my putting long range sniper rifles in the grey area because that would put hunting rifles in a grey area? "

I object to putting ANYTHING in a gray area. The Founders intended no limitations. If you want some limitations, then you will gain my support ONLY if there are no gray areas. I'm entirely uninterested in modifying the Supreme Law of the Land in any manner which permits the present infringements to continue.

Now tell me which hunting rifles shall the people have a right to keep and bear and which sniper rifles the people shall not have the right to keep and bear. If you leave it to me, all rifles will be protected. If you leave it to a liberal legislature, all rifles will be outlawed.

What are you proposing relative to the keeping and bearing of rifles? I suggest that you keep in mind that the so-called "assault weapons" in Kalifornia are banned as hunting rifles for larger game in most jurisdictions because the cartridges are insufficiently powerful to effect a clean kill.

Now tell me which hunting rifles shall the people have a right to keep and bear and which sniper rifles the people shall not have the right to keep and bear
~~~~~~~~

I would completely do away with the term “hunting rifle” all together. As far as I’m concerned, they are all self defense weapons that are also useful as hunting implements. I guess what I would do If I were king for a day is this: I would trade 50 caliber sniper rifles for 3 round burst M16 “assault” rifles. What I mean is I would let them ban or severely restrict 50 cal in exchange for unfettered access to by all “assault” weapons including full auto rifles to all legal law abiding citizens.

Fascinating thread. I'm sorry you're a lonely voice here. But I agree with you. Any and all weapons are protected (or supposed to be). The founders were certainly aware of privately owned cannon, gunships, kegs of dynamite, even private armies and had no problems with any of them - in fact welcomed every conceivable advance in weaponry.

And yes - even though I have to admit I paused when I first extended the concept to nukes, and had to think long and hard on that subject - I have to say even privately owned nukes are and should be protected.

Before all your detractors jump on me as another nutcase, I hope they will consider the very important aspect of the civilizing effect of private weapons ownership. Today we are living in an increasingly uncivilized world, so the thought of nukes in the hands of those predators out there naturally causes grave concerns. However, the breakdown of civilization is in large part due precisely to the disarming of law abiding, peaceful and responsible citizens - turning the population into easy prey is precisely what increases the numbers of predators - just like in nature - of which we are of course part even if we like to think of ourselves as removed from it. That little toy handgun in the purse has saved many a woman from rape, effectively civilizing the world around her. The same is true at every scale. Nuclear armed US and USSR did not directly confront each other creating another hot world war. They kept things relatively civilized.

As regards muslim fanatics - what difference does it make if they have nukes or box cutters - they can kill just as many people either way as we are reminded today. In fact, I would rather they identify themselves and their intention by carrying around nukes rather than be afraid of anyone carrying a pen knife onto a plane.

It should also be pointed out that fighter aircraft, 2000 pound bombs and suitcase nukes are rather expensive - limiting the market to those who have assets sufficient to need such protection.

Finally, should the day arrive that suitcase nukes are readily available and affordable, I have little doubt that there would immediately follow a big market for some lovely little invention that remotely disables any triggering device or some such counter-measure.

I would also point out to your detractors that it as not so long ago - 40 odd years ago - that I, not yet a teenager, openly carried a rifle to and from school in New York City on the subways without anyone thinking twice about it (my school had a target range in the basement)

So yes, even privately owned nukes ought be protected under the second amendment. As to why some responsible citizen might feel the need for one, I would trust them to assess their own needs. Trying to imagine such a need, perhaps in the not too distant future some rancher in a desolate area along our southern border might be facing invasion by some well armed drug gang from the south equipped with armored cars, rpg's and the like. What weapons of self defense might he need as a last resort?

Our founders were not stupid. The history of mankind has proven over and over that security and safety lie in the private possession of arms - whether a stick, a knife or the most advanced weapon available in the world of the day for surely anyone intending you harm will acquire and use the best they can get.