Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

I know a 78 year old wheelchair bound man that hunts. No idea what 158kg is I'm American.

 

348 lb

 

I don't know why that means you can't hike or hunt.

 

Obesity is harmful...should we ban all foods to? (Note...that's a rhetorical question)

 

I knew someone that was 400lbs and hunted. So I agree, not sure what his point is myself.

 

I don't think he really knows what he's talking about.

Someone said something about qualified citizens I pointed out what it takes to be a qualified citizen, he mentioned only law enforcement professionals and licensed hunters should be allowed to have guns but Rucker pointed out getting a license isn't that hard and in my state you can get a license at 16, but you can't legally own a gun at that age.

People that are ignorant on the subject think that either there's all these barriers to entry or that any junkie can do it, and it's typically based on whatever fits the narrative.

 

Far more people in the US die from obesity related conditions than from gunshot wounds.

But again life is only situationally precious. And the only situation it seems to be precious in for him is when it implies that banning guns is good.

 

I was only planning to read but, God, what a B.S. argument! Yeah, a stored nuclear warhead is safe, too, generally-- should there, then, be no controls on them? The examples that are being given, the situation which is cause for concern, if you could not figure this out for yourself, is when the wielder of the weapon INTENDS to hurt people! And there's no way that a guy, regardless of how many knives or what length of rope you give him, is going to be able to sit in a tenth-floor, Vegas hotel room (or whatever), & pick off 50 or 30 or even 10 people, down at a nearby concert, much less do so in a matter of a couple of minutes!

Guns are generally protected under the 2nd Amendment, but that does not mean that no restrictions may be placed upon gun ownership, like passing a backround check, for example. It is Constitutional to prohibit a felon from owning a gun. And for those weapons which are more formidable killing machines, meaning they have the capacity to fire rounds much faster than revolvers or hunting rifles (or any weapons that were around when the 2nd Amendment was written), additional requirements are not beyond legislative reach. I'm only spitballin' right now, but maybe psych evaluations? Definitely preventing anyone w/ certain, court-documented, psychological problems, which could make them more dangerous (as psychotics, for example) from owning any firearm.

Perhaps the storage of particular weapons could also be deemed to require greater protective measures-- there is precedent for this. Guns do have requirements for safe-keeping, at least in some states. But knives-- which you, yourself point out can be just as deadly-- anyone is free to keep out in their kitchen, for anyone to grab, even with kids running around. So guns have been judged to warrant greater safe guards. Semi-automatic assault rifles could certainly be deemed more of a potential hazard, in the massive numbers of casualties they are capable of inflicting in only a fraction of the time it would take for a person with a revolver-- even if the victims weren't using that extra time to run away, nor police using that time to respond-- so could be judged to be a greater concern for a municipality or, in the parlance of Constitutional law, represent a more compelling interest of the state to keep from being stolen or misused. Our forefathers loaded their guns one round at a time; 50- and 100-round clips should absolutely be prohibited.

 

What makes you think that? If something poses a greater risk to the citizens of a municipality (read: can kill or seriously injure far MORE of them, much more quickly) then it becomes a more compelling interest of that municipality to take measures to offset that risk. Lest you forget, assault rifles were actually illegal to buy or sell for 10 years, from 1994 - 2004 (or '93- '03), and became legal again NOT because the Supreme Court over-ruled the law, but because it expired & Congress did not renew it. Actually, Pres. George H. W. Bush had used an executive order for 4 years before that, beginning in 1989, to prohibit the importation of assault rifles. So don't give us this fallacious drivel that the perceived danger posed by any particular type of, "arms," is irrelevant to its 2nd Amendment protection. History says you're wrong. And none of us can know what the Court will say about any case, before that case, with its specifics, is brought.

 

no they're not radioactive isotopes that would be present and a huge abundance and a radioactive weapon is dangerous just to be around.

If it's not I know some guys that run an x-ray crew and they shoot gamma and let them expose you to a 3 mm pill of Cobalt 60 for 2 minutes and we'll see how you fare.

right a knife isn't that ranged weapon it is a melee weapon.

but saying a gun is a more deadly in a situation that only a gun could be deadly is rather poor argument. More people are killed with knives than with rifles.

you don't have to pass a background check. the only time you ever fill out form 4473 is when you're buying from a federally licensed firearm dealer. I can buy a shotgun or a rifle from my cousin and I don't have to pass the background check.

sure and I can accept restrictions on felons owning fire arms.

I would say absolutely not the psych evaluations that kind of thing stinks to me. Having to perform to gain a respectful opinion from just some random psychologist seems like a place for massive disenfranchisement and I will fight that to the death.

the problem with requiring this is there would be no way to enforce it you can't just barge into someone's house and do a random search of someone's house to inspect how they keep their guns that would violate several amendments. Gun safety and storing and keeping them is really up to you kind of like driving safely and how many times you barely get traffic rule and never get caught?

that doesn't mean anything. People that don't know anything about guns and make requirements for them exist do you remember the assault weapons ban? Do you remember the Columbine shooting? So the only pistol that was banned specifically by the assault weapons ban was a tec 9with a barrel shroud on it. One of the pistols the two column pine shooters had with them was it tech nine but it was compliant because it didn't have the barrel shroud forget the fact that it is the same gun that the law simply required not to have this cosmetic part. Kind of like requiring all cars that go over certain mile per hour not to have a hood ornament.

So just because there's regulations doesn't mean that people who create them are smart.

I would say that's more political than anything. Generally these mugs come about because something terrible happened and people just want to feel like they're doing something. so they act emotionally and make laws that are not possible to enforce and in no way affect anything.

oh my God you people really need to learn about guns. when you say things like this it just makes people like me shake our heads.

Like someone who's never lifted the hood of their car before explaining to me how an engine works.

Revolvers and semi-automatic rifles have the same rate of fire. One shot her trigger pull the only revolvers that you have to do something else with are single action revolvers you have to **** the hammer most modern revolvers are double action.

And you can reload of all revolver quicker than it works in your mind. And chances are if someone's doing a mass shooting with a revolver you are not going to bum rush them while they're reloading.

right so what the state needs to do is focus on catching the thief not hustling the victim of theft.

I don't know why people go to victim blaming strictly with theft of guns.

if someone stole your car and went and committed a vehicular homicide with it even if you left the keys in it you are not responsible for what that person did with it you are maybe being foolish but even then they stole from you.

Well I've got some good news for you there's no such thing as a 50-round clip the largest clip I ever saw was 13 rounds and that was huge.

These days guns use magazines. I don't think there should be any limit at all legally speaking on how many rounds of magazine can have. Essentially all it is is a metal box with a spring in it so anyone with a few tools can fabricate one.

 

If that were true, why would the person need the weapon at all? I guess it does play some part, huh? In other words, yes, anything can be a weapon, but certain things make anyone much more dangerous than they would be without it.

I'm not using this as a jumping-off point for a gun regulation argument, though I wish you could be the next one defending gun rights in the Supreme Court, w/ such infantile-level arguments.

 

Wrong. We’re talking about a particular crime, gun violence. You’re changing the subject. Guns kill people instantly and from a distance with efficiency like no other commonly available available device . It’s ridiculous to think other wise. It provides opportunity like no other device can.

If firearms didn’t work so well, why the heck are gun hoarders walking around with them strapped to their belts ?

 

Not if it's in a lead case.

 

Haven't you been against Trump's contesting of the election from the start?

 

no unless it's a radioactive isotope or an unstable explosive things don't make people more dangerous case in point there are 120 million gun owners in the country probably more now. If they were dangerous we should see done related death higher than what it is they're apparently extremely safe.

Claiming my arguments are infantile without forming a good argument against them is like you telling me you drive a Lamborghini to work everyday. Or that you're married to Carmen Electra or something like that.

Why should I care about these things you say they don't mean anything.

 

Here I am shaking my head again. Lead shielding really isn't the best depleted uranium is. But even then it's merely shielding it's not a barrier so yes even with proper shielding it's still dangerous.

 

So why would Washington have taken exception to an FGM-148 but not an AR-15?

What's that?

 

That does not mean that a law could not be passed that would require you to. Otherwise, by the logic of your supposed argument, anything that one can currently do, legally, couldn't be made illegal. Sure, that makes sense.

 

Further if it's in a lead case how are you going to make sure the two isotopes don't react. You'll have to open it to wedge the isotopes apart every once in awhile because whatever you use to do that will be eaten alive by the uranium

If you don't know about something or if all you know about something is what you read in a Superman comic book it maybe read up on it before you talk about it

 

well sure but that would only encourage people to purchase them illegally are these laws about protecting people or are they about harassing gun owners.

You can require me as much as you want to have to have a background check to buy a gun from my cousin but if I don't do it and buy it from him anyway how are you going to know?

Laws only work on the law abiding. And if you make it more difficult to abide laws you're just going to have less law abiding people.

Now what's the point in that?

 

Well, since we have thousands of them, tended by our soldiers, they must not be too dangerous to allow, based only on their radioactivity. You ever hear of radon? That shtuff is all over the place, & it's mildly radioactive &, over time, very harmful, as well. And nuclear power plants produce waste, partially depleted rods that emanate radiation as well: legal-- with, I'm guessing, some regulations (i.e., restrictions) on how it's stored. Oh, and the sun: radioactive, yet still legal. Somehow, I have a feeling it's not the escaping radioactivity that makes nuclear bombs prohibited, so much as their ability-- but only in the hands of a man, who is the one posing the real danger-- to be used to create massive casualties.

 

right you got me a nuclear missile silo as easy and safe to operate and maintain as the family SUV. It's not like there is an entire division of the military dedicated to maintaining them. I'm sure they don't have nuclear physicists monitoring them either.

Silly me

Sure, being exposed to the sun for five minutes or ambiant radon is just as safe as being exposed to reacting uranium or cobalt 60 for five minutes.

Again I know an x-ray crew let them expose you to their cobalt 60 source. It'll help your tan.

Sure, go down to the cobalt 60 store and get you some.

 

I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest argument I've heard in quite a while. "Sure you can pass a law, but how ya gonna know if I break it?" The same thing literally applies to every law on the books: if you break the law but don't get caught, then the law failed, in that instance, to work. That is no rationale, if it's not obvious to you, to not pass any laws.

Background checks would predominantly apply to gun dealers, gun shows, & internet dealers, which account for most gun sales. You are right, that private sales would not be anything that the government would likely even try to independently monitor. But, I assume, if one was a law-abiding person, & the law required the check, most people would do it, anyway. Why not-- just to avoid a $10 fee? And, of course, if a background check were required to register a weapon (& there were a requirement for registering it, which does not infringe on your right to own it, & which the Constitution does not prohibit) you would be taking the chance, if it ever arose that you were asked by a police officer for your registration, of your being fined for having an unregistered firearm (& having the weapon confiscated, at least until you had gone through all the proper legal procedures, and paid a sizable fine, in relation to the size of the fee you saved by skipping the background check, originally). But, based on some of your arguments here, I wouldn't doubt that you'd see that as the smart move.

 

Your average murderer isn't going to be shooting people from a mile away. In fact most crimes committed with guns are hand guns and within 10 feet.

And while YOU are stuck on blaming guns you are going in circles solving nothing. I prefer to look at the bigger picture where we address the causes of crime. Be it someone committing a crime using a gun or some other object. Because in the end the object used is irrelevant. Its irrelevant because objects do not cause crimes. And by focusing on the causes rather than the objects one is more likely to reduce, or even stop crime.

If you truly wanted to stop killings then you would be focusing on the causes. To do otherwise will accomplish nothing... except disarming innocent people....creating even more opportunities for crime to happen.

You have two houses.
One is clearly marked as having gun owners.
The other one is clearly marked as a gun free zone.

Which house do you think a murderer going to choose? The answer is already known btw. They even did a study on who criminals are more likely to. Commit crimes against...those without guns vs those with guns. They chose without guns 100% of the time. And that was regardless if they themselves had a gun or not.

So, your argument trying to tie opportunity with guns is not helping you in the slightest. Giving a knowing chance, a criminal will go after unarmed people before an armed person regardless if they themselves are armed or not. That is also why mass shooters will more often go after schools or churches than any other venue.

 

1. If you live in a house over a source of radon, you are exposed continually.

2. Your X-ray crew friends seem to manage, all right. Do they operate illegally, or are there certain procedures which, provided they follow them, make the risk deemed to be acceptable?

So YOUR point, then, is that there is certain, military equipment that poses special risks & so should only be handled by people with the proper training & under regulated conditions? Good to know.