Why the Second Amendment needs to be amended or abolished

And what does this have to do with someone walking out of a gun shop with an FIM-92, then driving to a remote desert location and engaging airliners?

 

The same thing as someone who walks out of a store with a green laser pointer, then driving to a remote desert location and engaging airliners.

 

The level of gun violence in America has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with morality. Moral, law abiding Citizens, do not do drive-by's, shoot up school yards, start riots, or burn/loot other people's property and assassinate folks that resist. Immoral people do that.

Moral people do not teach their children that is morally valid to take a few people out because they cannot get... a girlfriend.

Socialism/Socialists teach/enable/excuse those philosophies and thereafter demand that Law Abiding Citizens give up their Right because of it.

 

have you ever given any thought whatsoever to the fact that someone who is willing to commit mass murder, and then die as a result (either by being shot, executed or in prison) is not someone who is deterred by the threat of punishment?

 

Are green lasers legal?

 

Sure, but why does this mean that weapons such as the FIM-92 should be legal?

 

With the proper paperwork, so are explosives.

 

C4?

 

There's no difference between an FIM-92 and a green laser? They both have the same chance of taking out an airliner?

 

Interesting situation. One line of argument on here has been that Americans need guns to protect themselves from criminals.
If gun ownership was criminalised then technically the situation would be some criminals (those who hang on to their guns) would have guns to protect themselves from other criminals just like them.
Gun control is hardly a left wing stance. To me it is a common sense one.

 

Making law abiding citizens criminals is a tyrants work. Those that support tyrants deserve what they get.

 

If citizens disobey the law aren’t they then criminals?
I heard at the weekend that all of America might de criminalise possession of Marijuana.
So a person is one day a criminal because they’re in possession, yet the next day they might be ‘law abiding’.
It would be kind of ironic and convoluted if a previously law abiding citizen accepted their own criminality if they possess a gun (after they were banned…if that were to happen), to protect themselves against….well against people just like themselves.
Maybe laws are there for people to pick and choose from, and if the choice for some is anti the law I suppose those people would accept their own criminality and the consequences.

 

Which philosophies? By the way, who is featured in your avatar?

 

It's all word games, until it's not. Isn't that right?

 

C4 is indeed legal.

 

One could argue that, certainly. For instance, in your hands, you'd have a far higher chance of hitting an aircraft with a laser than you would a stinger.

 

Because people who want to defend themselves and their loved ones are exactly the same as those who seek to rape and murder.

 

"Gun control" has no single meaning. Without details, it's an uninteresting topic. Most of the actual gun control proposals aren't actually "common sense", as they aren't Constitutional, effective or enforceable, or are internally contradictory and arbitrary.

 

Wrong.
Laws are described by words, but the law is not a game.

 

Are they?
I think you’re wrong in your assertion.

 

Disabling both pilots beyond recovery?

 

I don't think they meet "arms" within the meaning of the second amendment but before we get to that inquiry, we have to examine where in the constitution, the federal government was properly delegated the power to ban what is essentially and item of artillery. I don't find any such delegation so it appears that this is a tenth amendment issue, not a second amendment issue. Now if the power was properly delegated, then the second amendment is in play. Anti aircraft missiles are essentially weapons that are not useful for personal civilian defense-and are more akin for national defense. They also are not weapons that a private citizen would normally keep and bear.

 

there is nothing common sense about a law that would turn peaceful citizens into criminals for doing actions that are objectively not harmful. what is even less common sense is the attitude that liberals want to pass laws that are based on the following specious assumptions

1) those who own firearms and have never harmed anyone, have to have their liberties further restricted to prevent them from doing what they have never done and

2) those who currently violate laws against harming others with firearms, will somehow stop engaging in violent crime if we only pass one more law, criminalizing the possession of items these criminals already commit felonies by currently owning

the gun control movement is the most patently dishonest political movement in this country. It lies about its motivations and it pretends to want crime control when the entire goal is pretending it is doing something about crime, while making the working environments of criminals safer. The American gun control movement aids and abets violent criminals and should be seen as the enemy of all law abiding citizens

 

Thank god for small miracles then. It sure sounded like you held both camps in equal contempt. Glad to hear different.

 

Okay, so then you disagree with @SiNNiK who thinks that they should be perfectly legal.