Our constitution gives us the rights to bear arms. Clearly nuclear weapons, which are technically arms, shouldn't be legal for any person to own. And most would agree a grenade launcher should also be banned.
Where do you think the line should be drawn and why?
2007-04-17 05:18:23 · 16 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sway, are you saying that all weapons should be legal because most people can't afford them?
2007-04-17 05:30:18 · update #1
The Right to Bear Arms - is the right to defend yourself. Some people can buy guns, as long as they are registered. They should be used to protect yourself in your home. You can't go around with your gun, in case something happens, but you can have it a home, in case of an intruder. You have the right to protect yourself and your family, but you can't go around with your weapon looking for a fight.
2007-04-17 05:22:41 · answer #1 · answered by Rica 82 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rifles, Shotguns, and Pistols should fall into the perameters of the legal definition of "Arms". Now you'll hear anti-gun groups talking about banning "assault rifles". Well technically any rifle despite it's outward appearence can be used as an "assault rifle". For crying out loud a ball bat can be come an assault weapon.
The line should be drawn at laws being enforced and idiots not having firearms.
I for example have several firearms in a variety of sizes, styles and calibers and not one has ever been used to commit a violent crime, or any crime for that matter. However you are correct in saying that no one needs a grenade launcher. It is in no way meant for hunting, target or sport shooting. As far as nukes go, that's just silly. The only way citizens would need those is if they needed to ensure that every citizen understands the premise of mutually assured destruction towards one another.
2007-04-17 05:31:56 · answer #2 · answered by kaiserray02 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's been fairly well established and accepted that it refers to arms for personal protection. This basically means firearms.
The gun lobbies have no issue with the law banning automatic weapons. And no issue with laws banning indescriminate weapons like grenades, bombs, claymore mines, howitzers or atom bombs.
In the state constitutions, like Michigans, it is more specific:
Article I, Section 6. "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
state."
2007-04-17 05:43:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, a grenade launcher is not that difficult to obtain. An SKS has a greanade launcher but the munition is hard to find. The rifle is relatively cheap and durable though.
2007-04-17 05:30:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in australia they've banned automatic shotguns and we've never been able to use automatic rifles or smg's. so its, semi automatic and single shot rifles and shotguns, and clips are still allowed, but nothing as high powered as a 50 cal. and crazy stuff like that. Sure it would be a bit of fun if we could use anything we wanted to but think of how quickly ppl could be killed whith the weapons banned here. an automatic shotgun for example if fully loaded and the unloaded into a crowd a lot of ppl would die and in real life there are no superheroes faster than a speeding bullet.
2007-04-17 05:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by bonedyourmum 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Bible "'tells us what to do"? Exactly HOW does it do this? People FIRST make a decision what they wish to "think" and THEN use something Bible verses they must validate that perception. At the time they had been written, even the ten Commandments intended some thing one of a kind to those that "believed" and adopted them, then they do to so much Christians at present. Do you discover that after they had been first written "Adultery" might ONLY be dedicated in opposition to the husband -- under no circumstances the spouse. And all too more often than not, trendy principles and understandings CHANGE the meanings of the very phrases from after they had been first written. Just one colossal instance. The greek word "para physin" intended some thing very one of a kind to them whilst it used to be written then it's translated to intend at present. It did NOT imply "in opposition to nautre" to the Greeks 2000 years in the past because it does to us at present, despite the fact that that is the usual translation. It could be bigger translated as "in opposition to the norm." Also appear on the woirds "malakoi" and "arsenokoites." ONLY lately are those phrases mixed and translated to learn "homosexuality" -- a thought NOT even to be had to the creator whilst those phrases had been penned. These phrases actually have NO specified translation that we will be able to be specified of. Using this identical Bible, Christians for his or her first one thousand years believed that lending cash at curiosity used to be IMMORAL. For greater than 1700 years, utilizing this identical Bible, Christians believed that the tuition of slavery used to be flawlessly OK. For over 1800 years, utilizing this identical Bible, Christians believed that ladies had been area to the authority of guy. Even at present, utilizing this SAME Bible, humans are on BOTH facets of many debatable problems. I a minimum of thanks for knowledge that simply due to the fact YOu keep specified ideals, this doesn't make it proper to drive the ones ideals onto others. When will humans eventually realize that this nation does now not belong to their church. It is the United States of America, NOT the United States of Fundamentalism, or of something devout view you espouse. Why is it that such a lot of Christians keep intentionally blind to all of the suffering and soreness their intollerances and bigotry deliver into this international by means of their so-known as "discovered fact" faith.
2016-09-05 15:30:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the second amendment.......would you go to a gunfight with a knife? Would a poorly outfitted Militia stand a chance against a well armed Tyrants Army?
2007-04-17 05:26:52 · answer #7 · answered by twostories 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anything up to a .50 caliber semi automatic rifle with a mile striking range.
The arms are really to protect us from the government and sometimes personal safety.
2007-04-17 05:22:11 · answer #8 · answered by Malthusian 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Weapons usable for self defense. The libs don't want us to own them because there is a hidden agenda to do a takeover like they did in USSR- like they did in Hitler's Germany. They don't want the people to be able to prevent such a takeover. The "elite" in Germany did not rebel against Hitler. The peasants did. Same in Russia.
=
2007-04-17 05:24:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
how many people do you knwo that can afford to buy grenade launchers and nuclear warheads?
Nope, thats not what I am saying, but you really arent going to have your local thug buying a tank and a nuclear warhead now are you?
2007-04-17 05:20:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋