Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
16. Of course there are limits. And there should be.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:25 PM
Jan 2013

There are three overall classes of weapons that relate to the range from which they are deployed and the kind of damage they are designed to do.



http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter20_rule71

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Weapons that are by nature indiscriminate are those that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. The prohibition of such weapons is also supported by the general prohibition of indiscriminate attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-to-hand
Hand-to-hand combat (sometimes abbreviated as HTH or H2H) is a lethal or nonlethal physical confrontation between two or more persons at very short range (grappling distance) that does not involve the use of firearms or other distance weapons.[1] While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons used at grappling distance such as knives, sticks, batons, or improvised weapons such as entrenching tools.[1] While the term hand-to-hand combat originally referred principally to engagements by military personnel on the battlefield, it can also refer to any personal physical engagement by two or more combatants, including police officers and civilians.[1]


Between indiscriminate weapons and "melee weapons" are the small arms that one person can carry and use. So one person may carry and use a semi automatic firearm because you have to select your target, point the gun at it and shoot. Full auto machine guns are considered indiscriminate weapons because they can lay down a hail of bullets like a garden hose of fire. Full auto firearms are heavily regulated and rather rare in the United States. "Melee weapons" are also regulated I believe but to a lesser extent. It isn't fashionable to carry a sword or a battle axe to Starbucks, so I guess it isn't much of a problem.

The firearms legal for common civilian use in the United States are further regulated by caliber and size. Common bullet calibers are available to the public in sizes ranging from .17 to .50 inches measured in the diameter of the bullet. Rifles and shotguns are required to be a minimum length which is 16" barrels and 18" barrels respectively.

These distinctions are by no means exclusive of one another. A rifle can be a melee weapon if it used as a club or has a bayonet attached. The distinction between 60 rounds per minute (semi auto) and 800 rounds per minute (full auto) becomes moot if you find yourself on the wrong end of one. A rifle can be shortened so much that it becomes a pistol, and a pistol might become a rifle if a shoulder stock and a longer barrel is attached.

The three distinctions above can only be rough guideline for the regulation of arms. Developments in firearms manufacture and design, strategic and tactical changes in their use, and changes in cultural norms all too often make existing distinctions between one gun and another moot. Further distinctions will be doubly moot because the surrounding technological, tactical, and cultural reasons for their use become significantly more important than the weapons themselves.

Here are some principles I try to keep in mind when it comes to guns.

1. There is no such thing as a benign bullet.
2. It is always wrong to kill, no matter why.
3. Never judge a man with a gun in your hand.
4. The cops can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time.

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are There Any Limitations...»Reply #16