"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?

[Christian Liberty]

Not if you shoot at high-rise buildings.

Though, to be honest, I've always wondered how all of these mass murderers are so...bad at killing people. Obviously, I'm glad they are, but if I ever decided to go on some crazy killing rampage with assault rifles, I'd like to think 100+ people wouldn't be out of the question.

They use handguns because they're easier to hide, I think.

 

[FSU63]

They use handguns because they're easier to hide, I think.

But I mean, what about the VT killer? He killed 32 and injured 17 with ARs, if I'm not mistaken.

If you really wanted to do as much damage as possible, make some flashbangs and just spray-n-pray when they're blinded. I just don't get how these people that have been going over these things in their heads probably 100000 times a day are so ineffective at wreaking havoc.

 

[Bohner]

Not if you shoot at high-rise buildings.

Though, to be honest, I've always wondered how all of these mass murderers are so...bad at killing people. Obviously, I'm glad they are, but if I ever decided to go on some crazy killing rampage with assault rifles, I'd like to think 100+ people wouldn't be out of the question.

How many people do you think you can kill by shooting at a high rise building? How are you going to do this in an inconspicuous manner? You'd only be able to get one shot off if you're lucky before you get taken down. You'd be much better off rigging some homemade explosives and putting it in a backpack.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Right. Just about everything on your list is a rocket launcher. Someone questioned whether the second amendment included rocket launchers. So my point is that if the 2nd amendment is for defending against tanks and the best defense against a tank is a rocket launcher....okay, I guess I should have spelled it out a little more.

Zuh? If you know of a better way to defend yourself against tanks, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[FSU63]

How many people do you think you can kill by shooting at a high rise building? How are you going to do this in an inconspicuous manner? You'd be much better off rigging some homemade explosives and putting it in a backpack.

That's true. I've honestly always wondered why all of the terrorists caught at airports didn't simply rig their suitcases and backpacks with bombs and then just blow it up at the entrance (or security). You'd probably do more damage than crashing a plane, in terms of casualties.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I wonder if there's really anything that gives the US government the right to own, possess, or to use devices of mass destruction such as a nuclear explosive. It does have the right to create military forces such as the army and navy, but those kinds of things are specific entities for specific purposes. It may be that only the states or the people have the right to such things.

 

[jmdrake]

Zuh? If you know of a better way to defend yourself against tanks, I'd love to hear about it.

I don't. That's why I'm saying if the second amendment is for defending against tyrants then rocket launchers should be covered by the 2nd amendment. That said I supposed Molotovs and EFPs can work in a pinch.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't. That's why I'm saying if the second amendment is for defending against tyrants then rocket launchers should be covered by the 2nd amendment. That said I supposed Molotovs and EFPs can work in a pinch.

oic. Thanks. ~hugs~

 

[jbauer]

But, in order to truly overcome our own military force, we'd need nukes.

Nonsense all you would need to do is not cut paychecks.

 

[Grubb556]

When it comes to nukes you need:

Lots of $$$$
Convince the scientists/builders to morally make the decision to build nukes for you.

Absent of government coercion, I imagine the second one is really hard to get.

 

[DamianTV]

ALL Rights End where another Mans Rights Begin

That is the ONLY limit that should ever be imposed on the Right to Bear Arms.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Beyond the silliness, everything except Nuclear ordnance just due to the sheer fact that by its nature it cannot be reasonably be used without damage to innocence (or collateral). This goes for stuff like Biological weapons as well. Infectious diseases by their nature are uncontrollable and meant to wreck havoc on the entire population so it gets the same axe as Nukes. They're also not very useful to private defense agencies as they kill the enemy as well as they kill your own clientele.

Comrad! - you are being dyslexic! The latest edition of the New Speak dictionary clearly states you only have the right to ARM BEARS!

You are completely correct about banning biological weapons, we we'll have a weapons inspection team over to your place this afternoon. You know, that can of "something" in the back of your fridge that hasn't seen the light of day in 8 months...

Why we are at it, it's also important to ban chemical weapons too, so we'll be over to collect those jugs of ammonia and clorox under your kitchen sink too...

-t

 

[Philhelm]

If I were a tyrant, I would not want my subjects to have any WMD's; ergo...

 

[jmdrake]

Comrad! - you are being dyslexic! The latest edition of the New Speak dictionary clearly states you only have the right to ARM BEARS!

You are completely correct about banning biological weapons, we we'll have a weapons inspection team over to your place this afternoon. You know, that can of "something" in the back of your fridge that hasn't seen the light of day in 8 months...

Why we are at it, it's also important to ban chemical weapons too, so we'll be over to collect those jugs of ammonia and clorox under your kitchen sink too...

-t

Technically speaking, pepper spray is a "chemical weapon."

 

[Acala]

But I mean, what about the VT killer? He killed 32 and injured 17 with ARs, if I'm not mistaken.

If you really wanted to do as much damage as possible, make some flashbangs and just spray-n-pray when they're blinded. I just don't get how these people that have been going over these things in their heads probably 100000 times a day are so ineffective at wreaking havoc.

The single greatest non-political mass murder in US history was at the Happy Land Disco. 87 people died. The weapon was a gallon of gasoline.

Violence is a software problem, not a hardware problem.

 

[pcosmar]

Where exactly does right end?

It does not end.

It is a "RIGHT".

And the right is not to be infringed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe

v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Zuh? If you know of a better way to defend yourself against tanks, I'd love to hear about it.

Artillery. If you're already at the point were your last line of defense are shoulder fired AT weapons at MBT's then you are in trouble.

XNN

 

[erowe1]

If there is a limit to the 2nd Amendment, such that it allows the Federal Government to use violence to prevent anyone anywhere from owning any kind of weapon, then that would just mean that the 2nd Amendment would be void in that respect, since it would contradict the Creator's moral law.

 

[FSU63]

The single greatest non-political mass murder in US history was at the Happy Land Disco. 87 people died. The weapon was a gallon of gasoline.

Violence is a software problem, not a hardware problem.

That's true. But it would still be easier to kill more people with ARs and bombs.

 

[FSU63]

the Creator's moral law.

What does this even mean?