So where do you draw the line? Nowhere? Is it OK for me to have a bazooka? A tank? An anti-aircraft missile? A cruise missile? A nuclear warhead?
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I think that line was drawn in the 30's with the NFA. The bazooka argument is specious.
Draw your own line and while you're at it, post a "No Guns Here" sign in your front yard.
The line is what a U.S. infantryman carries for weaponry.
Sophistry.
We aren't talking about crew-served weapons.
In the case of the AR-15 and AK-47 look-alikes, we are talking about semi-automatic only rifles, which RESEMBLE their military selective-fire cousins. They are not "weapons of war" or "assault rifles".
Please educate yourself about firearms. It will help you avoid makeing ignorant statements such as this.
And by the way, it's legal in the U.S. to own a tank. You should watch "Tank Overhaul" on the Military Channel. You'll see some beautiful examples.
Only the ignorant bring that up (and I mean that well).
The "line" is not across the object, it is across behavior.
If you can store it and use it safely, fine. If you don't, others can do anything necessary to disarm you. This applies from rocks to nukes.
The only special problem with WMDs is one cannot be reasonably sure of who is in range; one always evaluates not only the target, but who else will be affected.
Also: if you can afford it, you can probably handle it properly. If you can afford an F16, I'm pretty sure you won't do something stupid with it. Misuse isn't worthwhile, so we trust that sane people won't misuse such things - especially when getting such things is very costly.
How about a yellow stripe down your back, and ya can join code pink?
end at wmd IMHO and a tank or bazooka is not a wmd
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Where is "the line"? In my opinion the line is not determined by the destructive capablity of any weapon. The line is determined by what can safely be stored and used by one person, or even a group of people.
Storage between a lowly single shot bolt action .22LR cricket and a fully automatic M-16 is not different at all, though the cricket takes up slightly less physical space.
Then there is usage. Honestly that single shot .22LR cricket is a little more complicated to operate then an M-16. Cleaning wise I think the cricket wins in ease.
As far as bullet calibers go I think I would MUCH rather be shot by a 5.56 Nato round then say the round fired out of my 30-06 hunting rifle. Though I think the 5.56 Nato round is inhuman for deer and elk since there is less chance for that quick one shot kill. For varmints though rabbit, squirrel, ground hogs (the bane of farmers everywhere), the 5.56 Nato is a great round. In fact Rugar makes the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle for pretty much this purpose. It fires the .223 round (same caliber) and accepts most AR-15 style magazines.
So lets move on to Grenades. One person can pull a pin and throw. I can get dummy grenades to practice with all day long. Storage is easy...easier and less space then a rifle in fact.
Bazooka? Why not? Storage, pretty much the same as a large rifle. Usage, well now we are talking two man team probably, but again with proper training two people can load and fire very safely.
A Tank? More people to operate it and maintain it. Bigger storage area for sure. Again though...if you got the money, why not? In colonial days regular citizens had cannons. I think a modern tank is much more safe then a muzzle loading cannon. With safety training why not have me and 3 of my closest friends take out a quarter share each in a tank. People do that all the time with other things they can't afford...like airplanes.
All of the above items I honestly wouldn't have any problem with people owning if they know how to use them properly. The main reason why is that if they aren't being used they sit there and are pretty inert (IE they aren't going to go killing anyone on their own).
WMD and Nukes. Now here is where I would draw the line. Not because I don't trust people with them...I don't thrust the weapons. Just sitting there in storage they have a tendancy of getting old and leaking and doing bad things. Just one person, or even a small group of people cannot handle the mess if an accident happens. Even isolated incidences of nuclear material accidents are global events even if the effected area is small.
So I guess for me what it comes down to is storage. If the thing ain't gonna kill people by just sitting there in storage I don't have a problem at all with people owning them as long as safety is maintained during usage and of course the standard laws of civility (murder, mayhem, etc) not being broken.
An AR-15 is a rifle it is not a destructive device it is not poison gas it is an individual weapon . The question is were do you draw your line? Is armed self defense allowed in your version of utopia or do the people have to bend over & grab their ankles whenever criminals want to help themselves to whatever they want.
It has been. It's called the National Firearms Act of 1968 and the changes made by the McClure Volkmer Bill of 1986....at least I think it was 1986. The general definitions used as limits are CREW SERVED and AREA WEAPONS. That rules out the tanks, antitank arms and artillery. Even those have exceptions. Mike Dillon of Dillon Reloading fame owns a General Electric minigun that's usually mounted on a helicopter for area suppression. I'm 100% unconcerned about his ownership of that weapon.
Here's an interesting point for you. Full auto so called machineguns have been strictly regulated since 1939. It's still possible to own them, all that is required is a form 4 from BATFE and an extensive background check AND a letter of recommendation from a Chief of Police. Paperwork can take up to a year to complete. But once it's done pay your $200 for the tax stamp and transfer the weapon which in itself can cost upwards of $20,000.
Here's the kicker, since 1939 ONLY ONE LAWFUL HOLDER OF SUCH A WEAPON HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF USING THAT WEAPON IN A CRIME...and that guy was a police officer who had access to full auto weapons anyway!
You sound like one of the lefties crying about those evil guns....without the realization that it's the evil heart and not the implement! The worse mass murder in the history of this nation was committed by boxcutters and aircraft.
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Be sure that you understand that the AR-15 is a low/mid powered center fire rifle, most "hunting" rifles are more powerful.
Bullhocky
Read the second amendment it says arms not rifles. Arms means any military weapon. The purpose was that the citizen was to be well armed as any in the military to provide for a common defense and also to allow a rebellion against a tyranny. The incident that started the armed conflict in the revolution was the British attempt to take away the arms in Lexington.
So according to the second amendment the answer is yes you should be allowed to have a bazooka, tank, aa missile. I know that people do own tanks as collectors so that is unusual but not illegal.
The people were supposed to be the defense and expected to have appropiate arms to provide a defense. The founders were against the creation of a standard army.
The line is properly drawn only at your wallet. That line effectively bans you from owning a nuclear weapon. Constitutionally there is no line. The entry ends with "...shall not be infringed." There are no qualifications. Either you support the Constitution or you do not.
Technically, you don't draw any lines. The Founders believed that the People were the government, and that the responsibility of maintaining the free state rests on the shoulders of the People. The base assumption is that the citizens are good, rather than bad. I guess they didn't know leftists would come along and coddle the criminals.
If one maintains the proper assumption that the citizens are moral, upstanding, and responsible people, there can be no problem with extending such trust. Governments, on the other hand, have proven throughout history to be unreliable power mongers who will unjustly serve the ends of power. The Second Ammendment was designed to keep the power in the hands of the People.
How could you not know this?
Now, small arms are easier to keep and maintain at home. Crew served weapons require more care to maintain and deploy. There should be no problems with citizen militias maintaining crew served weapons. Even in the Civil War cannons were provided by citizens for use by the military.
You need to read a lot about the foundations of this government. I suggest you start with the Federalist Papers.