So what about this one?

[Silver]

Should this be protected by this "second amendment" you guys talk about all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

 

[hypocritexposer]

there are already laws about this type of weapon.

But I doubt obama sheds any tears for those children he kills with drones.

 

[smalltime]

Its not a weapon.Its a toy desighned to scare Canadians.Any kid with a sling shot could bring it down. :lol:

 

[Silver]

there are already laws about this type of weapon.

But I doubt obama sheds any tears for those children he kills with drones.

That two lines of deflection and zero lines of answering the question.

 

[Mike]

Fake videos have no bearing on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[MsSage]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We have gotten where a semi auto is called an assault weapon even though they are different, because of infringement.
Criminals do not care about any law to get what they want just look at increased crime rate in strict gun control areas.....Crime rate in right to carry states is the lowest.
Look at all the "mass shootings" Every single one had numerous violations of current laws. So it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented these tragedies.

 

[Silver]

I guess the point of my original post was to see if in fact there is a line somewhere between what people should be allowed to own. And if there is a line, it needs to be defined somehow. Not saying current definitions are right or wrong.
So if in fact there is a line (and by U.S. laws it appears there already is all sorts of laws as to who can and can't own a firearm, and what types qualified people may own), how should it be enforced effectively?
Cars kill people all the time, by the thousands, often times these cars are driven by people breaking existing taffic laws. So just having traffic laws doesn't prevent people from breaking these laws and killing people. But it is well proven that increased enforcement of traffic laws saves lives.
Maybe the decision the American people need to make is how much enforcement are they willing to accept, and find what their acceptable tolerance of gun related violence in their society is.

 

[Steve]

Should this be protected by this "second amendment" you guys talk about all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

no this falls under the sacred first amendment and shows how hypocritical Hollywood and Silicone Valley really are..

this game has nothing to do with reality or available weapons.. but for a mind teetering on the edge it is just enough to rationalize anarchy.

 

[Steve]

I guess the point of my original post was to see if in fact there is a line somewhere between what people should be allowed to own. And if there is a line, it needs to be defined somehow. Not saying current definitions are right or wrong.
So if in fact there is a line (and by U.S. laws it appears there already is all sorts of laws as to who can and can't own a firearm, and what types qualified people may own), how should it be enforced effectively?

the line has often been drawn with a distinction between military style weapons or hunting style such as those owned by the public..

if it is an effective military weapon, it is often kept from the hands of he general public..

just fairly enforcing existing gun laws would be a good start.. clearly defining existing laws would help. but that should be done at the states level within the federal framework..

 

[hypocritexposer]

Silver, here is a quote from a friend, for what it is worth.

The Constitution must mean what it says or else it means nothing. In almost all cases, the meaning of words does not change, or at least has not changed since 1789; for the Constitution to mean what it says, the words must be read to mean that they meant to the people who wrote them, and what they meant to the people who agreed to adopt and/or amend them. The term "general welfare", for example, means the same thing today that it meant then - something is in the "general welfare" if it benefits everyone, i.e., the people generally. Likewise, "commerce" means the same thing today that it meant then - and the same thing it meant thousands of years ago; our government has decided that its meaning has changed to include decisions not to engage in commerce, and in a better world, the people would lop off the heads of the government officials who did that and who legislate today based on that, but the meaning of the word itself never changed.

All that said, the meaning of the word "arms" has changed. In 1789, "arms" included gunpowder-propelled pieces of metal, pieces of metal with sharp edges or points, and rudimentary rockets that used gunpowder as propellant and explosive. And to this day, since the 2nd amendment has not been changed, the Constitution either allows citizens to keep and bear these arms, or the Constitution means nothing. Many different weapons have been invented, or old weapons improved, since 1789, but most still resemble in all relevant respects the weapons that existed in 1789, and as such they are necessarily covered by the 2nd amendment. And what all of these weapons have in common is that in the hands of a citizen, while they can be used to kill several people, they can not be used to destroy entire communities, cities, or states. The recent events in Newtown, for example, as horrific as they were, pale in significance to the number of dead caused by machetes on a typical day in Africa. One person with any weapon can, and did on occasion prior to 1789, kill tens of people, but can not cause the breakdown of the society itself.

Not so with some of the more powerful weapons invented since 1789. Weapons that can kill hundreds of people (or more) in a single use, or that can kill any number of people at great distances, were not contemplated at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted, are destructive of the social order, are not related to personal self-defense, can't be used for hunting, and for these and possibly other reasons can't reasonably be included as "arms" within the meaning of the Constitution. As such, Congress is within its authority to regulate the possession of such weapons, since such regulation is, in my opinion, in the general welfare. In any event, regulation of such weapons is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mike]

If any interpretations in the 2nd Amendment are found to mean that the "people" can keep and/or bear arms in order to hold government in check, which I believe it does, those people should allow themselves equal arms to those government forces.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson