Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be allowed to own whatever firearms they desire?

[archangel003]

What reason would the government have to be more effectively armed than its citizens?

[kinggovernor]

I personally like the current system, more or less. Fully automatic weapons should not be readily available, I don't want to live in a society where that is prevelant.

[Scrum]

I should be able to own a nuke if I can afford it, but we should stop Iran from getting one.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I should be able to own a nuke if I can afford it, but we should stop Iran from getting one.

fire-arm Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fahyuhr-ahrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.


firearm - Definitions from Dictionary.com

[Thorgrim]

Because we aren't in a militia, and the constitution doesn't give a right to self defense or hunting, the founders rejected those ideas

Our "rights" to those come from state law adopted from english common law, and that law is subject to change via case law, its not constitutional though

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

fire-arm Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fahyuhr-ahrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.


firearm - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Please show me where in the 2nd amendment it says "firearms".

arm2 (ärm) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "arms" [p]
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

[ballz2wallz]

this thread is about the OP, not the second amendment. allow me to refer you back to the OP:

Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be allowed to own whatever firearms they desire?

if you want to make posts about the second amendment, perhaps ask him what he thinks about the second amendment, or make a separate thread about it? but you can't answer his question with something off topic.

[WickedLou9]

because the general public is stupid and irresponsible.

[thomez]

We should be armed, but not to the extent of our military forces. I mean, I don't want concealed RPG permits or anything.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because we aren't in a militia, ....

One of the definitions of militia is

The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy.

Throw out the sexist language and you get *anybody* in a community who can defend the community.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

One of the definitions of militia is

The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy.

Throw out the sexist language and you get *anybody* in a community who can defend the community.

Try reading militia laws at the adoption of the constitution

they were regulated, not armed mobs

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Try reading militia laws at the adoption of the constitution

they were regulated, not armed mobs

Try reading the entire 2nd amendment and you'll see it says the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia.




(ballz2wallz, I'm only mentioning the 2nd amendment because he brought up militia and we all know where that reference came from)

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because we aren't in a militia, and the constitution doesn't give a right to self defense or hunting, the founders rejected those ideas

Our "rights" to those come from state law adopted from english common law, and that law is subject to change via case law, its not constitutional though

The founders intended for the 2nd Amendment to be used so that the people could effectively resist tyranny.

But I guess government agencies know best, right? Like the Stasi and the KGB.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

Try reading the entire 2nd amendment and you'll see it says the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia.




(ballz2wallz, I'm only mentioning the 2nd amendment because he brought up militia and we all know where that reference came from)

This isn't even debated among leftists anymore...why? Because its clear the founders thought that the PEOPLE should have the right to defend themselves first and foremost against government oppression.

[archangel003]

Let's stop throwing the nuclear red-herring around, also.

We're talking about firearms here, nuclear arms weren't around in 1776, and they're the genie we should have left in the bottle.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

because the general public is stupid and irresponsible.

That is one of the major reasons I want to own a firearm.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This isn't even debated among leftists anymore...why? Because its clear the founders thought that the PEOPLE should have the right to defend themselves first and foremost against government oppression.

People have the right their civic right of a well-regulated militia, the PEOPLE

"defend against government oppression"

well what the government defines as oppresion...Washington rallied the militia to squash what he considered a rebellion, the reasoning being that as long as they could vote and had access to the courts, there is NO OPPRESSION

if the SC rules that taking away all guns is constitutional, along with indefinite holdings, etc add in any libertarian nightmare

the precedent set by Washington is that you DON'T have a right to fight your perceived "oppression" because you still have access to the courts to appeal and make a better case, and you can vote, and campaign to elect those who would stop those cases from being enforced

however, some "right to revolt" is not as easy as some are making it out to be

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

well what the government defines as oppresion...Washington rallied the militia to squash what he considered a rebellion, the reasoning being that as long as they could vote and had access to the courts, there is NO OPPRESSION

Washington's acts PROVED that even the best government can be oppresive.

[thomez]

the founders believed you had a right to eliminate tyranny through force when your natural rights were being trampled upon

that's not the same as a tax issue, so bringing up Washington's efforts is not too relevant here

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Washington's acts PROVED that even the best government can be oppresive.

NO