|
|
Post by pinman on May 19, 2024 15:16:15 GMT -5
Since one of the common refrains for the banning of semi-auto rifles is "the founding fathers couldn't envision these weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights", could they have envisioned the average life expectancy climbing to 70, 80 years old? The average life expectancy in 1776 was about 35 years. So people were getting married and even going to war in their teens. Kids as young as 10 YO served in the Revolutionary War so do we grant 10, 13, 15 year olds the right to purchase a firearm on their own because, well, "back in the day"?
|
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on May 19, 2024 15:24:17 GMT -5
Times change. But the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed”
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 19, 2024 16:11:53 GMT -5
Since one of the common refrains for the banning of semi-auto rifles is "the founding fathers couldn't envision these weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights", could they have envisioned the average life expectancy climbing to 70, 80 years old? The average life expectancy in 1776 was about 35 years. So people were getting married and even going to war in their teens. Kids as young as 10 YO served in the Revolutionary War so do we grant 10, 13, 15 year olds the right to purchase a firearm on their own because, well, "back in the day"? People lived to 70 and 80 even back then, but do due childhood illnesses and high infant deaths plus those wars you speak of, more people died at very young ages, which screwed up the life expectancy. If you could make it past childhood your odds were good for living a long life. I had to do it.  |
|
|
|
Post by madm002 on May 20, 2024 8:50:04 GMT -5
Not constitutional scholar here, but I think the primary motivation for this was not personal freedom to have a weapon (but it may have been part of it), but to ensure the population was armed and could defend itself via citizen militias. To ensure there was not going to be another King George in the USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on May 20, 2024 9:35:36 GMT -5
So where is the line drawn? I ask this question in a serious manner. At what point does the Government have the right to say no I'm sorry you can't own that? Somewhere between a .17 and a thermonuclear device. What is the cut off and why? I've met some who think if a person can afford it then it's their right under the 2nd to own it.
|
|
|
|
Post by madm002 on May 20, 2024 11:58:49 GMT -5
For me the line is weapon of mass destruction or terror.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on May 20, 2024 13:22:28 GMT -5
For me the line is weapon of mass destruction or terror. Fair enough. So what happened when a billionaire forms his own defense company and buys a lot of hardware and paying better than the U.S. Military? When does it become a concern that he has his own private army loyal to him? Think Blackwater on a much greater scale. He could argue owning "arms" is well within his rights. There are already private owners of F16s and other air craft. But they are demilitirized. Who's to say then what munitions he can possess? Why draw the line at WMDs? I'm not antigun nor am I a gun nut. But these and other questions do go through my head pretty often. I do belive be it illegally or through legal means it's to easy to get a gun.. just like arming teachers I know way to many people I barely trust with a pencil or pocket knife that own guns and are all to quick to tell you they do. I really wish I had some answers but the deeper into it I get the more questions I have. Sigh in a perfect world..... |
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on May 20, 2024 13:26:25 GMT -5
For me the line is weapon of mass destruction or terror. Fair enough. So what happened when a billionaire forms his own defense company and buys a lot of hardware and paying better than the U.S. Military? When does it become a concern that he has his own private army loyal to him? Think Blackwater on a much greater scale. He could argue owning "arms" is well within his rights. There are already private owners of F16s and other air craft. But they are demilitirized. Who's to say then what munitions he can possess? Why draw the line at WMDs? I'm not antigun nor am I a gun nut. But these and other questions do go through my head pretty often. I do belive be it illegally or through legal means it's to easy to get a gun.. just like arming teachers I know way to many people I barely trust with a pencil or pocket knife that own guns and are all to quick to tell you they do. I really wish I had some answers but the deeper into it I get the more questions I have. Sigh in a perfect world..... Elons Army |
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on May 20, 2024 14:25:36 GMT -5
Fair enough. So what happened when a billionaire forms his own defense company and buys a lot of hardware and paying better than the U.S. Military? When does it become a concern that he has his own private army loyal to him? Think Blackwater on a much greater scale. He could argue owning "arms" is well within his rights. There are already private owners of F16s and other air craft. But they are demilitirized. Who's to say then what munitions he can possess? Why draw the line at WMDs? I'm not antigun nor am I a gun nut. But these and other questions do go through my head pretty often. I do belive be it illegally or through legal means it's to easy to get a gun.. just like arming teachers I know way to many people I barely trust with a pencil or pocket knife that own guns and are all to quick to tell you they do. I really wish I had some answers but the deeper into it I get the more questions I have. Sigh in a perfect world..... Elons Army Gates Soros Koch Hell the U.S. military already acts as the Kings Guard for Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are so sorry they even hire out their own defense. |
|
|
|
Post by mapper on May 20, 2024 14:28:37 GMT -5
Interesting question, where the line between arms generally 50 cal or less, destructive devices above 50 cal although exceptions for shotguns flare guns, line throwers, and black powder cannons.
Destructive devices are covered as NFA items, as well as full auto, short barrel rifle, suppressors, and any other weapon items.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRTerror on May 20, 2024 18:05:16 GMT -5
A Private Army in the USofA would be a bad gig.
Your Army would last a couple months no matter how many Jet Fighters you have.
You don't shoot at the Fighters.. You shoot the guys that keep them flying.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmarkb on May 20, 2024 22:46:55 GMT -5
For me the line is weapon of mass destruction or terror. Define both. A few bags of fertilizer mixed with a couple easily and legally available can be made into a weapon of mass destruction. And can, and has been, used in terrorist strikes. |
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on May 21, 2024 6:49:00 GMT -5
Yes. Harsh punishment for criminals and their crimes is a much better deterrent than taking arms from law abiding citizens. Much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by gandy on May 21, 2024 7:05:35 GMT -5
|
|
