General Discussion

Yavin4

(35,407 posts)

6. It's Not A Strawman Arugment. "Arms" Technology Changes Over Time.

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:43 AM

Jan 2013

An assault weapon can now do almost as much damage as a small explosive device. Maybe even more.

How many people would have died/injured if a grenade was thrown into that movie theater in Colorado instead of using an assault weapon?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are There Any Limitations on the "Right to Bear Arms"? Any at all? [View all] Yavin4 Jan 2013 OP

There are limitations on the 1st amendment when free speech endangers the shraby Jan 2013 #1

To see the intent of the 2nd, you can check the relevant laws at the time it was ratified. jmg257 Jan 2013 #2

+1. bemildred Jan 2013 #15

- Considering that all powers Chathamization Jan 2013 #23

You don't need to imagine - just have to read the constitution! :) jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

Wikipedia says... joeybee12 Jan 2013 #32

That - and the whole "treason" definition in the Constitution! jmg257 Jan 2013 #34

Uniformity - hmmm nt LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #35

was everyone- including women and african americans allowed to by guns? bettyellen Jan 2013 #43

See how what works? Not sure what you are saying. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #44

the intent was never to let all americans have free unregulated access to all weapons bettyellen Jan 2013 #46

Yep. Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #3

A nuke contains hazardous materials rightsideout Jan 2013 #4

The NFA of 1934 defined the limits of what civilians can own hack89 Jan 2013 #5

It's Not A Strawman Arugment. "Arms" Technology Changes Over Time. Yavin4 Jan 2013 #6

There were deadlier weapons than "assault weapons" being sold to civilians before 1934 hack89 Jan 2013 #7

So, Then You Agree That Banning High Capacity Guns Is Not An Infringement of the 2nd Amendment Yavin4 Jan 2013 #9

" High Capacity Guns" is a meaningless term hack89 Jan 2013 #10

No one should own a gun that can shoot more than 6 rounds without re-loading Yavin4 Jan 2013 #20

OK. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #21

What's magical about the number 6? Bake Jan 2013 #31

Most people have revolvers with six rounds Yavin4 Jan 2013 #39

I assume you've done the research to know what "most people" own? Bake Jan 2013 #41

"And a standard issue 14 or 15 round mag in a semi-auto handgun is HARDLY a WMD" Yavin4 Jan 2013 #42

WMD = Weapon of Mass Destruction Bake Jan 2013 #48

Do You Know How Many People Died in the July 2005 Subway Bombings in London? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #49

Well, the Supreme Court did weigh in Chathamization Jan 2013 #24

I believe it is illegal to own a shotgun with less than 18 inch barrel and if hunting water fowl Bandit Jan 2013 #8

Yes cherokeeprogressive Jan 2013 #11

Anarchy jambo101 Jan 2013 #12

Here is the position of the gun nuts bongbong Jan 2013 #13

The language of the amendment leaves it somewhat open. bemildred Jan 2013 #14

Of course there are limits. And there should be. rrneck Jan 2013 #16

As long as you can own a single-shot musket, then your right to bear arms is NOT infringed Hugabear Jan 2013 #17

That's not a very compelling argument onenote Jan 2013 #18

Do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own ANY type of arms you want? Hugabear Jan 2013 #36

Nope. But I don't think that, as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, it can be limited to muskets onenote Jan 2013 #37

As long as you can read and print just 1 book...N/T beevul Jan 2013 #33

So you know nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #40

Lexington wasn't holding Nukes or even Cannon One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #19

SC has been here stklurker Jan 2013 #22

Lots of limitations. For example, the "well regulated militia" Taverner Jan 2013 #25

There are certainly limitations: elleng Jan 2013 #26

There are a number of arguments that all converge on the same area... k2qb3 Jan 2013 #28

"well regulated" riverwalker Jan 2013 #29

Yes, there are limits. The 2008 SCOTUS decision D.C. v Heller Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #30

I honestly believe the vague use of the term "arms" was purposefully done to OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #38

I say the right path here is the COMMERCE clause. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #45

sigh....ffs Marrah_G Jan 2013 #47