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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are There Any Limitations on the "Right to Bear Arms"? Any at all? [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)16. Of course there are limits. And there should be.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
To see the intent of the 2nd, you can check the relevant laws at the time it was ratified.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#2
the intent was never to let all americans have free unregulated access to all weapons
bettyellen
Jan 2013
#46
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
"And a standard issue 14 or 15 round mag in a semi-auto handgun is HARDLY a WMD"
Yavin4
Jan 2013
#42
I believe it is illegal to own a shotgun with less than 18 inch barrel and if hunting water fowl
Bandit
Jan 2013
#8
As long as you can own a single-shot musket, then your right to bear arms is NOT infringed
Hugabear
Jan 2013
#17
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
I honestly believe the vague use of the term "arms" was purposefully done to
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#38