For 2nd ammendment all the way believers, at what fire power is the line drawn?

the underlying natural right alluded to in the 145 year old Cruikhank decision is the natural right of self defense. Weapons designed to dealing with individual targets are useful for INDIVIDUAL self defense. Those that are designed to attack areas not so much. That is where I draw the line. Now on a more practical and easier to determine line-I use this: if a type of firearm is used by Civilian police, then it is protected by the second amendment

 

I call this the rattlesnake scenario. Suppose I am in a large room. No weapons, no protective gear. Also in the room is a rattlesnake that tries to avoid me. Now I have two choices. I can leave it alone and it won't bother me. Or I can step hard on it and since I am a fairly good sized dude, my weight alone will kill it. But there is a decent chance the snake might bite me. It will die, I might not, but I will suffer serious pain no matter what. Based on that, I leave the snake be

 

Property tax is on LAND and improvements to land o wise one.

Its a tax calculated not to generate revenue but to punish and limit the free exercise of a right. That's not how that works.
How you get a restitution is you take it from the person who commits a crime or tort after going through the legal process. We call it the 'victims of crime fund' in my state and every criminal defendant owes. Not random people who commit no offense.

 

Grenades are available to police. As are launchers.

 

I am not aware of police departments having access to fragmentation, Thermite or WP grenades. Flash bang or teargas, yes.

 

They do have concussion grenades though, which will kill or maim a person.

Further: The Marque and Reprisal clause clearly indicates the Founders expected to only need to give permission to reave enemy ships of the line and merchants.
Still further: No ban on the ownership of cannon etc was in existence at the time of the founding. Ergo any line drawn as you described would violate the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment if a state provision, see Bruen.

 

U.S. infantry soldiers were an average age of 22 y/o.

 

I know. Not all that much older than teenagers

 

And of course, bombs and bomb making materials and things of that nature are prohibited; also weapons that are fully automatic or have short barrels or oversize bores- which can be owned, but the process is complex and cost to to so is quite high. So there are indeed a great many restrictions on weapons other than the conventional ones.

It would seem our biggest failure is to assume that restrictions in law will cause some kind of change in the criminal intent of those who ignore the laws anyway.
Weapons have always existed from the first rock thrown by a caveman, they aren't going away. But- no weapon is a threat in itself until it is in the hands of a criminal. Crime and criminals are the issue. Before guns existed, crime existed and criminals used weapons, like swords or bow and arrow. Makes no sense to be tough on weapons and soft on crime.

 

Interesting.....
I'm pretty satisfied with most of the existing restrictions but would like for suppressors to be more accessible.

The existing gun laws should keep the anti gun people happy because they certainly plentiful.

I put suppressors on my wish list because with the noise it's hard to find a place to target shoot.

Thanks,

 

I tend to agree with @Turtledude on this with just a slight divergence. But generally any weapon that a cop can use should be acceptable for ordinary citizens. My slight divergence is that fully automatic weapons should be allowed also. Basically anything that doesn't explode causing mass damage/casualties.

And no, the government would not actually be able to wipe us out with little effort. The Taliban et al (all the "terrorists" in the Middle East) have proven that without a shadow of a doubt. The "War on Terror" has been going on for 21 years and there is still no end in sight...and the Taliban now control Afghanistan. While some of the things they use is obviously illegal (and wouldn't even be acceptable under the 2nd Amendment) most are actually easy to make with just a bit of knowledge. Pipe bombs for instance can be made with most things laying around your house.

 

A 12 year old German soldier named Alfred Czech won the Iron Cross, 2nd Class while fighting on the Eastern Front.

The first source(*) I could find that gave an approximate number claims that during the last part of the war, there were about 300,000 German children under 18 who were combat soldiers.


(*) https://blackgold.org/GroupedWork/5ceae871-ed82-de1e-2c33-74909567e32b-eng/Home

 

And the citizen militias had canon at the time.

 

It's drawn for us in federal law. Do some research. Here's a start

 

This is why we are supposed to have citizen soldiers. By the way private citizens have access to drones.

 

FBI, DEA, USMS AND MOST big city police departments have a ready supply of fully automatic carbines or SMGs. I use this line drawing based on the concept of estoppel. A government unit that issues such weapons for its CIVILIAN employees for self defense, cannot be heard to say legitimately that those weapons have no valid uses in the possession of other honest civilians.

 

Its impossible to get the ammo because the ammo isn't really 'DIY'able. I've seen rocket launchers and grenade launchers for sale at shows. They arent (or weren't until recently?) regulated. The ammo is what the ATF restricts, and its effective in the case of explosive munitions because no one wants to try to DIY rockets and artillery shells.

 

If all it takes to beat the American People is drones, why did US forces lose to the Taliban?

1. Lawfully held firearms contribute nearly nothing to the unlawful homicide rate.
2. Illegal firearms in the hands of felons, controlled by felon-friendly Democrat politicians are responsible for nearly all the unlawful homicides.

I do not believe we should discuss 1) rather than 2).

 

Nuclear weapons.

 

a laser gun, one that you can pull the trigger and spin around and everyone is chopped in half?

 

what I find interesting is many republican States ban pocket knives over a certain length, is a knife not an arm

 

The FDA regulates lasers based on their use, not their ownership. Spinning around in a crowd with one powerful enough to damage human tissue is already illegal. Kinda like how swords and chainsaws and razorwire and torches and everything else except firearms are addressed (a laser is not a firearm).

 

You mean concealment of knives, I assume. And I agree, its asinine. But most commonly those laws are pretty old, and are more the result of a lack of a large, organized movement to reverse them than they are any modern desire to keep them. Laws are hard to get rid of once they're established. They were instituted in similar manner as firearms- you can carry whatever blade length you want as long as its visible, just like you can with rifles. And just like with rifles, you're likely to get harrassed by both cops and karens if you carry your sword in the wrong area...

 

so some guns like laser guns can be banned

 

Not so far, no. There is no laser that is illegal to own. You can own any laser. Though the govt could prolly ban any laser that isn't considered an 'arm', which would be most of them, and all of them that any regular person could afford to own, because lasers that actually make effective weapons cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars... unless you just wanna blind people, I guess, in which case there's plenty on ebay. But also there's just really bright lights that can do that too...

What is it with you and lasers anyway?