Does the second amendment apply to machine guns, grenades, and other heavy equipment?

[erowe1]

Does anybody have a link to an intelligent video debate, operating under the premise:

Legislative gun-control restrictions reduce deaths caused by violent crime.

(Pro and con arguments should, of course, be included in the debate.) I'm trying to find some kind of discussion that does not deteriorate into mischaracterizations of the opposing party.

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.

I haven't watched it, but try this:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/598-guns-reduce-crime

 

[CroSpartacus]

Why add "for self defense" at the end of that?

If you think a legitimate use of grenades, machine guns, mortars, etc. is to use in battle, then you have already decided that there exists a legitimate use for them. If there exists a legitimate use for them, then how could you tell someone they have no right to have them? Maybe their purpose for having them is to use in that legitimate way.

Also, if there's a group of people who do have the right to carry those weapons and other groups that don't, then who gets to declare which people belong to which group, and to impose its will on the group that isn't allowed to have those weapons by taking them away or prohibiting them from buying them or such things? The government again? Who are these special people that occupy the government, and where do they get all these rights the rest of us don't have?

I have yet to find any legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to walk into a mall strapped in grenades or carrying a bazooka. If he is carrying those types of weapons, then it does not sound like they are for self-defense purposes which is what the second amendment is for.

This is what the whole rule of law in a republic is for. I think that we the citizens grant the military the privilege to use those types of heavy weaponry for war. The same way we declare who is a soldier and who is not a soldier is how we decide who gets to use weapons of war. There is a chain of command where the military appoints those in charge of guarding weaponry and who gets to use it. If someone uses the weapons irresponsibly, we have a right to remove that person just as we have the right to remove government officials from power.

I have yet to see anyone argue what is to be done if someone throws grenades in a mass body of people? What purpose should we need grenades or machine guns for? Clearly a gun gets the job done most efficiently.

 

[Pericles]

I have yet to find any legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to walk into a mall strapped in grenades or carrying a bazooka. If he is carrying those types of weapons, then it does not sound like they are for self-defense purposes which is what the second amendment is for.

This is what the whole rule of law in a republic is for. I think that we the citizens grant the military the privilege to use those types of heavy weaponry for war. The same way we declare who is a soldier and who is not a soldier is how we decide who gets to use weapons of war. There is a chain of command where the military appoints those in charge of guarding weaponry and who gets to use it. If someone uses the weapons irresponsibly, we have a right to remove that person just as we have the right to remove government officials from power.

I have yet to see anyone argue what is to be done if someone throws grenades in a mass body of people? What purpose should we need grenades or machine guns for? Clearly a gun gets the job done most efficiently.

You don't "need" a girlfriend with a D cup bra size, but you probably wouldn't object to having a girlfriend with that attribute.

 

[pcosmar]

Does anybody have a link to an intelligent video debate, operating under the premise:

Legislative gun-control restrictions reduce deaths caused by violent crime.

Nope. No such thing exists. Gun control always leads to violence.. Usually by the very government that legislated it.
They have never reduced deaths.. Just the preferred tool has changed.

The only debate is between the truth and various flavors of snake oil.

 

[pcosmar]

You don't "need" a girlfriend with a D cup bra size, but you probably wouldn't object to having a girlfriend with that attribute.

 

[erowe1]

I have yet to find any legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to walk into a mall strapped in grenades or carrying a bazooka.

I don't see why you included "walk into a mall" there.

Is there ever a legitimate reason for anyone at all to do that, including government agents? If so, then someone's being a private citizen can't be the thing that makes it illegitimate for them.

I think that we the citizens grant the military the privilege to use those types of heavy weaponry for war.

If we grant them that "privilege," doesn't that imply that it's ours to grant?

What purpose should we need grenades or machine guns for? Clearly a gun gets the job done most efficiently.

Guns get some jobs done most efficiently. But obviously you think there are some jobs that call for grenades and machine guns, because you want the government to use them.

 

[presence]

I have yet to see anyone argue what is to be done if someone throws grenades in a mass body of people? What purpose should we need grenades or machine guns for? Clearly a gun gets the job done most efficiently.

Maybe we should outlaw box cutters and the civilian airline industry they seem to be much more efficient than guns.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

I haven't watched it, but try this:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/598-guns-reduce-crime

Thank you! I added the URL to my list of saved websites, for later viewing.

 

[presence]

// sorry wrong thread

 

[Anti Federalist]

The military carries heavy artillery, tanks, and bombs. Because other armies in other countries carry these types of weaponry, it is obvious that the US military should carry them as well. The military has bases all over the country that carry these types of weaponry where they are stored and used for practice to train recruits. Suppose that the door is open and anyone can own hand grenades, is it logical to believe someone walking around wrapped in grenades who says "I am exercising the 2nd amendment" is sincere?

So your answer to erowe is "well, everybody else is doing it...".

Fine.

No better argument for "civilians" to have access to such weapons as well.

This is how I view it: I have no problem with people carrying guns with them or shot-guns out in the open. I have no problem with this because if a person walks into a school or university with a gun planning to kill a lot of people, armed citizens can easily take him down and save lives. This is where the problem lies if everyone can carry grenades. Suppose someone walks into a university strapped with grenades and tosses them in a large auditorium. The grenades explode and kill a large amount of people, it is too late to respond and kill the criminal because the grenades have already exploded where the killer threw them. Some might argue "well if we ban grenades then a criminal is still not going to follow the law" that may be true, but still shooting down a criminal with a gun will kill him much faster then throwing a grenade at him (endangering lives of people near him as well) This is a big reason I don't see any logical reason for citizens to walk around with grenades of bazookas.

Like I said in a previous post, I'll disarm when Officer Friendly does.

That includes his grenades.


Evansville SWAT Team Responds to Online Threats, Raids the Wrong House

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/06/...onds-to-online-threats-raids-the-wrong-house/

First watch this breathless local news report, which includes video from the raid. The police shatter a window, then set off at
least two flash grenades in the house—clearly before they could have any idea who or what might be inside. The family’s front door was actually already open. But what’s the fun in walking through an open door when you’re decked out in battle garb?

The raid was in response to some online threats made against police officers and their families. So in response to words, the police brought violence. And you wouldn’t know it from the fawning local news reporter in the link above, but yes, they brought that violence upon innocent people.


Detroit police officer charged in shooting death of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, 7, during raid

http://www.freep.com/article/201110...-Stanley-Jones-7-during-raid?odyssey=nav|head

Detroit Police Officer Joseph Weekley has been arraigned on an indictment on charges of involuntary manslaughter and careless and reckless discharge of a firearm causing death in the May 2010 slaying of Aiyana Stanley-Jones during a raid.

Also charged in an indictment is Allison Howard, 42, of Boston. She is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Wayne County prosecutors said Howard was a photographer with “The First 48,” which had a crew following the Special Response Team the night of the raid.

Weekley and Howard will be back in court Friday for a pretrial hearing before Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway.

Assistant prosecutor Robert Moran told the court that she lied during the investigative subpoena, adding seven months onto the investigation into the shooting by Michigan State Police.


'What the Heck Was That All About?'

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/25/43317.htm

DALLAS (CN) - A diesel mechanic who was making himself lunch in his kitchen says Dallas police fired a flash bomb through his back door, smashed through and "zip tied" his hands behind his back, then beat him until he was bloody and unconscious and ransacked his house - apparently by mistake, as no charges were filed after the chaos subsided.
In his federal complaint, Danny Cantu, 45, says he has never been convicted of a crime. He has a high school diploma and a degree from ITT as a diesel mechanic.
Cantu says he was making his lunch in his kitchen on the afternoon of Jan. 22, 2010 when he saw several uniformed officers run into his backyard.
Almost at once, he says, the officers fired a flash bomb through his back door.
"In matter of milliseconds after the deafening and frightening explosion, the defendant officers ... forcefully entered the home by ramming through the back door," the complaint states.
Cantu said the officers did not "knock and announce" their presence or intentions, nor give him a chance to let them into his home peacefully, or otherwise attempt to obtain his consent for them to enter.
"Upon forcefully and violently entering plaintiffs home, defendant officers ... screamed at plaintiff Danny Cantu to 'get on the ground!' Plaintiff Danny Cantu immediately complied by laying face first on the kitchen floor and spreading his arms and legs while facing the floor beneath him," the complaint states.



Sometimes, I just don't know what to say...

I mean, is there anybody left that buys this "land of the free" bullshit anymore?

If there are, I'm here to tell you, when government randomly grenades homes and kills people, you ain't living in a free country anymore.

Get a fucking rope...



Grenade burns sleeping girl as SWAT team raids Billings home

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_71d1f226-1474-11e2-b4b4-0019bb2963f4.html

12 Oct. 2012

A 12-year-old girl suffered burns to one side of her body when a flash grenade went off next to her as a police SWAT team raided a West End home Tuesday morning.

"She has first- and second-degree burns down the left side of her body and on her arms," said the girl's mother, Jackie Fasching. "She's got severe pain. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes."

Medical staff at the scene tended to the girl afterward and then her mother drove her to the hospital, where she was treated and released later that day.

A photo of the girl provided by Fasching to The Gazette shows red and black burns on her side.

Police Chief Rich St. John said the 6 a.m. raid at 2128 Custer Ave., was to execute a search warrant as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation by the City-County Special Investigations Unit.

The grenade is commonly called a "flash-bang" and is used to disorient people with a bright flash, a loud bang and a concussive blast. It went off on the floor where the girl was sleeping. She was in her sister's bedroom near the window the grenade came through, Fasching said.

A SWAT member attached it to a boomstick, a metal pole that detonates the grenade, and stuck it through the bedroom window. St. John said the grenade normally stays on the boomstick so it goes off in a controlled manner at a higher level.

However, the officer didn't realize that there was a delay on the grenade when he tried to detonate it. He dropped it to move onto a new device, St. John said. The grenade fell to the floor and went off near the girl.

"It was totally unforeseen, totally unplanned and extremely regrettable," St. John said. "We certainly did not want a juvenile, or anyone else for that matter, to get injured."

On Thursday, Fasching took her daughter back to the hospital to have her wounds treated.

She questioned why police would take such actions with children in the home and why it needed a SWAT team.

"A simple knock on the door and I would've let them in," she said. "They said their intel told them there was a meth lab at our house. If they would've checked, they would've known there's not."

She and her two daughters and her husband were home at the time of the raid. She said her husband, who suffers from congenital heart disease and liver failure, told officers he would open the front door as the raid began and was opening it as they knocked it down.

When the grenade went off in the room, it left a large bowl-shaped dent in the wall and "blew the nails out of the drywall," Fasching said.

St. John said investigators did plenty of homework on the residence before deciding to launch the raid but didn't know children were inside.

"The information that we had did not have any juveniles in the house and did not have any juveniles in the room," he said. "We generally do not introduce these disorienting devices when they're present."

The decision to use a SWAT team was based on a detailed checklist the department uses when serving warrants.

Investigators consider dozens of items such as residents' past criminal convictions, other criminal history, mental illness and previous interactions with law enforcement.

Each item is assigned a point value and if the total exceeds a certain threshold, SWAT is requested. Then a commander approves or rejects the request.

In Tuesday's raid, the points exceeded the threshold and investigators called in SWAT.

"Every bit of information and intelligence that we have comes together and we determine what kind of risk is there," St. John said. "The warrant was based on some hard evidence and everything we knew at the time."

But Fasching said the risk wasn't there and the entry created, for her and her daughters, a sense of fear they can't shake.

"I'm going to have to take them to counseling," she said. "They're never going to get over that."

A claims process has already been started with the city. St. John said it's not an overnight process, but it does determine if the Police Department needs to make restitution.

"If we're wrong or made a mistake, then we're going to take care of it," he said. "But if it determines we're not, then we'll go with that. When we do this, we want to ensure the safety of not only the officers, but the residents inside."

No arrests were made during the raid and no charges have been filed, although a police spokesman said afterward that some evidence was recovered during the search. St. John declined to release specifics of the drug case, citing the active investigation, but did say that "activity was significant enough where our drug unit requested a search warrant."

Fasching said she's considering legal action but, for now, is more concerned about her daughters.

"I would like to see whoever threw those grenades in my daughter's room be reprimanded," she said. "If anybody else did that it would be aggravated assault. I just want to see that the city is held accountable for what they did to my children."

 

[madengr]

Suppose that the door is open and anyone can own hand grenades, is it logical to believe someone walking around wrapped in grenades who says "I am exercising the 2nd amendment" is sincere?

Actually, you can own a hand grenade. Again, they are NFA items and each one will require a $200 tax stamp. I'm sure some local laws about explosives storage would shut you down.

This is the fedgovs back door method of gun control. Technically you can own most small arms, but they have been regulated into impracticality. I know it is illegal to put a guidance system on a model rocket, but cruise missiles are OK.

 

[Carson]

Apparently not, or he would have realized after reading them how foolish he would end up looking. The concept that government is more trustworthy of control of weapons of war is only a good one if you're part of the government.

You don't have to be around for very many years to hear them promise, promise, promise and then as soon as it suits them, they get a new mouth piece to preach a new gospel. They are an entity. No conscience what-so-ever.

When I was younger I remember an older, very trustworthy sounding California Highway Patrol Officer come on the television (On our dime in a round about way, I figure.) and tell us he would never pull anyone over for only, not wearing a seat belt, if the law past. The way I had what he was saying figured is that it would be pretty slim he would even if he could. I'll bet he was retiring very soon before the law could go into effect.

 

[Carson]

Actually, you can own a hand grenade. Again, they are NFA items and each one will require a $200 tax stamp. I'm sure some local laws about explosives storage would shut you down.

This is the fedgovs back door method of gun control. Technically you can own most small arms, but they have been regulated into impracticality. I know it is illegal to put a guidance system on a model rocket, but cruise missiles are OK.

That rule about the model rockets having no guidance system has stuck the hobby in the stone ages. I suppose the danger it has added has made it more exciting.

With the technology we have now we could be making some pretty cool platforms for some pretty interesting research.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I believe any citizen should be allowed to bear any arms they can get their hands on. If that means my neighbor has anti-matter weapons, so be it.

 

[Origanalist]

You don't have to be around for very many years to hear them promise, promise, promise and then as soon as it suits them, they get a new mouth piece to preach a new gospel. They are an entity. No conscience what-so-ever.

When I was younger I remember an older, very trustworthy sounding California Highway Patrol Officer come on the television (On our dime in a round about way, I figure.) and tell us he would never pull anyone over for only, not wearing a seat belt, if the law past. The way I had what he was saying figured is that it would be pretty slim he would even if he could. I'll bet he was retiring very soon before the law could go into effect.

Yep, same old same old. Lie, cheat and steal.

Oh yeah, and bomb the piss out of you if you don't play along.

 

[Anti Federalist]

When I was younger I remember an older, very trustworthy sounding California Highway Patrol Officer come on the television (On our dime in a round about way, I figure.) and tell us he would never pull anyone over for only, not wearing a seat belt, if the law past. The way I had what he was saying figured is that it would be pretty slim he would even if he could. I'll bet he was retiring very soon before the law could go into effect.

Holy shit, they really are predictable.

I heard the same damn thing from a NJ state cop at a news conference, proclaiming how they would never lobby for "primary "enforcement" that this new law was just secondary to any other stoppable offense.

Two years later NJ passed primary enforcement, with the NJ state cops lobbying hard for it.

 

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by Carson

When I was younger I remember an older, very trustworthy sounding California Highway Patrol Officer come on the television (On our dime in a round about way, I figure.) and tell us he would never pull anyone over for only, not wearing a seat belt, if the law past. The way I had what he was saying figured is that it would be pretty slim he would even if he could. I'll bet he was retiring very soon before the law could go into effect.

Holy shit, they really are predictable.

I heard the same damn thing from a NJ state cop at a news conference, proclaiming how they would never lobby for "primary "enforcement" that this new law was just secondary to any other stoppable offense.

Two years later NJ passed primary enforcement, with the NJ state cops lobbying hard for it.

How very strange.... I seem to remember the same line being used here...who woulda thunk it?

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

It seems 200 years ago, the militia/citizens and the military had similar weapons...

Nowadays, I imagine it is pretty hard to defend yourself against tyranny with just a handgun. Tyranny have assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, artillery and etc etc.

 

[Dr.3D]

It seems 200 years ago, the militia/citizens and the military had similar weapons...

Nowadays, I imagine it is pretty hard to defend yourself against tyranny with just a handgun. Tyranny have assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, artillery and etc etc.

It might help if responsible citizens had a few crates of grenades and some RPGs on hand.

 

[CroSpartacus]

So your answer to erowe is "well, everybody else is doing it...".

Fine.

No better argument for "civilians" to have access to such weapons as well.



Like I said in a previous post, I'll disarm when Officer Friendly does.

That includes his grenades.

If the military of every developed country has grenades and tanks then it is logical for the US to have those weapons as well. It would be foolish and idiotic otherwise.

Why do civilians need grenades and bazookas? Nobody has yet given me a good reason for a civilian to carry anything other than a gun for self defense. I am comfortable having a gun strapped next to me, I have no reason whatsoever to be carrying a grenade.

Unless you are advocating an anarchy, then any form of government even a minarchy grants some power to officials that civilians do not have.