ot. 2nd am.: threats

[svelte]

[quote=ucodegen]
[quote=scaredyclassic]if the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.[/quote]
Not useful, easier. ‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual. This was never the intent of the Founding Fathers – again, it is also shown in the Federalist Papers. War, bloodshed should never be easy nor sanitary. Keeping it dirty, keeps it to the last resort.[/quote]

Out of this I’m interested in:
[quote=ucodegen]
‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual.[/quote]

I don’t believe “heavy weapons” was mentioned in the Federalist Papers. And where did you get the “people at large” versus “small group or single individual”?

Again, not in the Federalist Papers.

If your argument is that a grenade should be illegal because it can allow a single individual to take out a large number of people (which appears to be what you’re saying), then you obviously think automatic guns should be illegal too.

[ucodegen]

[quote=svelte]
Out of this I’m interested in:
[quote=ucodegen]
‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual.[/quote]

I don’t believe “heavy weapons” was mentioned in the Federalist Papers. And where did you get the “people at large” versus “small group or single individual”?

Again, not in the Federalist Papers.
[/quote]
Actually the use of ‘people at large’ is used in the Federalist Papers – I took a quote from Hamilton who contributed.

When the Federalist Papers were written, they did not distinguish between heavy weapons and light. They felt that any citizen should be able to own a cannon. They did not conceive of hand weapons being able to fire at rates of several hundreds of rounds per minute.
[quote=svelte]
If your argument is that a grenade should be illegal because it can allow a single individual to take out a large number of people (which appears to be what you’re saying), then you obviously think automatic guns should be illegal too.[/quote]
I assume by automatic, you mean ‘machine’ or fully automatic. I feel that these should be highly regulated – at a federal firearms license level. Defense contractors use the federal firearms license to be able to build equipment for them or build the weapons themselves.

Oddly – Tommy Guns are grandfathered..

[svelte]

[quote=ucodegen]

[quote=svelte]
If your argument is that a grenade should be illegal because it can allow a single individual to take out a large number of people (which appears to be what you’re saying), then you obviously think automatic guns should be illegal too.[/quote]
I assume by automatic, you mean ‘machine’ or fully automatic. I feel that these should be highly regulated – at a federal firearms license level. Defense contractors use the federal firearms license to be able to build equipment for them or build the weapons themselves.
[/quote]

Sounds fair to me. Can’t say I disagree…

[Anonymous]

[quote=ucodegen]
The statement is laughable when you consider that most of the recent political ‘violence’ has been caused by Anti-Trump protesters – not Pro-Trump people. It even got to the point that the media was making comments about it[/quote]

You’re still trying to defend Trumps words without actually addressing his words?

There hasn’t been any “political violence” during this election. It’s pathetic that you even attempt to suggest there is.

Since you bring up 2nd Amendment inspired “political violence” then let’s talk about Timothy McVeigh. He was trying to do what Trump hinted at: use violence against the government because he didn’t like the way things were going. He and his conspirators didn’t like what the elected government was doing so they decided they had to start something that would drive change.

They felt there was “nothing they could do.” But being “2nd Amendment people” they bought into the fantasy that killing representatives of the government (with daycare center full of children as “collateral damage”) was the real American solution.

After all, McVeigh believed, that’s why the 2nd Amendment lets us have these guns in the first place. It gives us a means – and a license – to fight the rouge government.

Before you go there with the nitpick that he didn’t use guns: It was the idea that every disgruntled American has some constitutionally-endowed right to kill members of the government that was his motivation. An idea that continues to be intertwined with with the gun rights “2nd Amendment people” today.

And now we have the Bundy Ranch and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge incidents – a bunch of heavily-armed “2nd Amendment people” threatening violence against the government based on the most trivial and nonsensical grudges. Luckily most of these nitwits haven’t had the guts to actually pull the trigger but they are creating dangerous situations that do nothing to move the country forward. Trump seems to be more than ok with that – especially if it gets him a few more votes.

These “bring your arsenal to a bird-watching park because we have to fight the federal government by forcing out the park ranger” groups are representative of Trump’s base. He’s actively courting them. Sounds like he’s already won you over.

[Author]

Posts