The Supreme Court has decided that we, the people, have the right to bear arms for our our personal defense. The question is, how do you decide HOW big a weapon is too much before it should be disallowed?
I know there's the current morass of squabbles over "assault" weapons, the 26 year old ban on machine guns, etc. But HOW do you decide what the limit is, and where do you, THR members, think the limit should be? Let me try to make a list of arms, from least powerful to most, and you decide where on the spectrum the second amendment no longer applies.
1. Various melee weapons
2. Muzzle loading blackpowder rifles and pistols
3. Tasers (ranged electroshock weapons that incapacitate)
4. Revolvers
5. Semi-automatic handguns
6. High-Cap magazine handguns (having triple the number of shots does matter)
7. magazine fed bolt action rifles
8. semi-automatic magazine fed rifles
9. High caliber semi-automatic rifles (0.50, 20 mm)
10. Full-automatic personal weapons
11. Full-automatic machine guns, man portable
12. Vehicle mounted machine guns
13. Rocket Launchers
14. Mortars and flamethrowers (flamethrowers are higher up because the burns are horrifically inhumane)
15. Up-armored vehicles with mounted weapons
16. Bradleys (APCs)
17. Abrams Tanks
18. Remotely controlled drone aircraft armed with missiles and bombs
19. Attack Helicopters
20. Air Superiority Fighters
21. Single-pilot bombers loaded with conventional bombs
22. Multiple-crew bombers loaded with conventional bombs
23. Naval Destroyers
25. Naval Submarines
26. Aircraft carrier groups
27. Bombing aircraft loaded with atomic bombs
28. Nuclear tipped cruise missiles
29. ICBMs
30. Nuclear Submarines loaded with sea launched ICBMs.
There does have to be a limit. A case could be made that since in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, they could not have predicted weapons better than at number 2, that is where the limit should be. Were wealthy land owners at the time allowed their own personal cannon? If so, that would tell us much about the intent behind the authors of the Constitution.
Perhaps some of the later entries on the list are absurd, but keep in mind they are theoretically affordable for a small number of billionaires.
I know there's the current morass of squabbles over "assault" weapons, the 26 year old ban on machine guns, etc. But HOW do you decide what the limit is, and where do you, THR members, think the limit should be? Let me try to make a list of arms, from least powerful to most, and you decide where on the spectrum the second amendment no longer applies.
1. Various melee weapons
2. Muzzle loading blackpowder rifles and pistols
3. Tasers (ranged electroshock weapons that incapacitate)
4. Revolvers
5. Semi-automatic handguns
6. High-Cap magazine handguns (having triple the number of shots does matter)
7. magazine fed bolt action rifles
8. semi-automatic magazine fed rifles
9. High caliber semi-automatic rifles (0.50, 20 mm)
10. Full-automatic personal weapons
11. Full-automatic machine guns, man portable
12. Vehicle mounted machine guns
13. Rocket Launchers
14. Mortars and flamethrowers (flamethrowers are higher up because the burns are horrifically inhumane)
15. Up-armored vehicles with mounted weapons
16. Bradleys (APCs)
17. Abrams Tanks
18. Remotely controlled drone aircraft armed with missiles and bombs
19. Attack Helicopters
20. Air Superiority Fighters
21. Single-pilot bombers loaded with conventional bombs
22. Multiple-crew bombers loaded with conventional bombs
23. Naval Destroyers
25. Naval Submarines
26. Aircraft carrier groups
27. Bombing aircraft loaded with atomic bombs
28. Nuclear tipped cruise missiles
29. ICBMs
30. Nuclear Submarines loaded with sea launched ICBMs.
There does have to be a limit. A case could be made that since in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, they could not have predicted weapons better than at number 2, that is where the limit should be. Were wealthy land owners at the time allowed their own personal cannon? If so, that would tell us much about the intent behind the authors of the Constitution.
Perhaps some of the later entries on the list are absurd, but keep in mind they are theoretically affordable for a small number of billionaires.