6 ms·

It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they

by rdtsc 9y ago

It depends how you look at it. What was the purpose. Presumably after fighting in the Revolutionary War the goal was not to give people hunting privileges, they had something else in mind. From that point of view, maybe RPGs should be allowed, but so should attack helicopters, surveillance capabilities, private spy satellites, etc. > IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder. Surprisingly perhaps you can buy a military grade flamethrower complete with a napalm package: https://throwflame.com/ https://throwflame.com/ it's not even classified as a firearm, and is illegal in only two states I think.

goldenkey 9y ago
That flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?
- punchclockhero 9y ago
  Clearing brush. It's considered an agricultural tool IIRC.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Also for preburning (ahead of forest fires) IIRC.
    - ianamartin 9y ago
      Are you saying that literally fighting fire with fire is a thing? I may have missed my calling . . . .
      - munk-a 9y ago
        I mean... yes? That is where the saying comes from.
        goldenkey 9y ago
        Never really thought about it. But it makes sense to cut a "gap" in the forest using fire, to prevent a fire from crossing the gap. Once burned, something aint gonna burn again...
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't? It can be more effective at clearing bunkers and closed rooms? The military were using these in WWII for trenches, bunkers, clearing brush. My friend's grandpa in US was operating one in the Pacific during WWII. I just brought it was an example how something potentially more deadly than guns or RPGs is not much regulated and how laws are not very rational sometimes.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
> It depends how you look at it. I recently purchased the Federalist Papers so I could have a better understanding of "how" to read it, what the context was, and what types of discussions to anticipate having with those who'd like to look at it differently
- 928jf0923 9y ago
  The Federalist Papers don't matter much in 2017. The doctrinal position of the courts today is the 2nd Amendment is not wide open. It's for defense of self and family IN THE HOME or defense of state. It doesn't restrict states from legalizing further concessions, though. Been reading about it with the Parkland stories. Antonin Scalia wrote that the 2nd is not unlimited, it doesn't allow possession of any type of weapon for any use case, just a couple years before he died. I can't find the article he was quoted in, but around the time of the last SCOTUS case related to 2nd, an NRA exec was on record, I'm paraphrasing, something like "the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting." The right side of the argument allows the romanticized notions to flourish as political ammo.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  And what have you learned for those of us who haven’t read the federalist papers? Also, why do they need to be purchased? Isn’t that information in the public domain? Surely enough time has passed and Alexander Hamilton’s family don’t need to continue to profit from it?
  - grimjack00 9y ago
    They don't need to be purchased(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1404 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1404). Some people still read physical books, though, which generally requires purchasing if they wish to keep the book.
  - selectodude 9y ago
    Can’t speak for the parent, but I buy public domain books because it tends to be cheaper than the paper and toner required to print it. And it looks nicer.
mywittyname 9y ago
This has always been my way of looking at the 2A. It's clearly intended to give citizens the rights and tools to fight wars, otherwise it wouldn't mention it along with militias. Thus, it does seem logical that it extends to armaments of war, such as knives, firearms, artillery, bombs, etc (perhaps even hacking tools). I'm a gun owner myself, and I've (long ago) taken the stance that the 2A isn't really compatible with modern life, as the people who originally wrote it could not have anticipated the weapons militaries deploy today. It makes sense in my mind that it is Congress' responsibility to regulate what it reasonable weapons for civilized society.
- donw 9y ago
  Congress does regulate those weapons. There's a reason you can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a machine gun, or a rocket launcher. That said, I don't much care for the fact that the requirement to have legal access to machine guns is "be rich enough to buy your way around the law". Personally, I do think we need a complete re-work of the way we treat weapons to reflect the realities of the modern world. (1) We have four hundred million weapons in the United States. It is horribly negligent that safe weapon handling is not taught in schools, at multiple levels. Also a good touchpoint to get police interacting positively with the community. (2) The current background check system should be replaced with a Swiss-style one; e.g., you get a code, valid for say a week or two, that any seller can use to verify that you have passed a background check. This doesn't create a de-facto registry, so no problem getting gun owners (or the NRA) to go for this one. (4) A red-flag law that allows immediate family members and healthcare professionals to temporarily bar an individual from purchasing weapons, with safeguards in-place to keep bad actors from abusing the system (e.g., a psychiatrist that just reports all of his patients to the system because he opposes gun ownership). (5) Removing gun rights only in the case of violent crime. Right now, in most states, misdemeanor assault won't cost you your gun rights, but a felony for tax evasion will. That's ass-backwards. (6) Machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and the like should be available with a license. You really need to be able to show that you can handle these things safely. Right now, it's just "be rich". (7) Treat short-barreled rifles and shotguns as normal firearms, and silencers like any other accessory. (8) Concealed-carry should be the same for police as it is for normal citizens. Same licensing requirements: a one-day course, including a test on safe weapon handling. This also ends gun-free zones: if you have a license, you can carry wherever you want. (9) Open carry needs to work differently for urban and rural areas. The above permit will allow you to open-carry a pistol in an urban area. Rifles, no. Put it in a case. In the countryside, open carry just makes sense. (10) Actually prosecute straw sellers. Buy a gun for somebody that can't legally buy one on their own, you permanently lose your gun rights, plus whatever punishment makes sense. (11) Secure storage requirements. If one of your weapons is stolen and used for a crime, you are legally an accessory if you can not demonstrate that you took reasonable measures to store the weapon securely (e.g., a gun safe or lockable case). This doesn't require police inspections, but provides a strong incentive for personal responsibility. All of this would enjoy massive support from gun owners, and address a lot of existing problems.

by rdtsc 9y ago

goldenkey 9y ago

That flamethrower is awesome. What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't?

punchclockhero 9y ago
Clearing brush. It's considered an agricultural tool IIRC.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Also for preburning (ahead of forest fires) IIRC.
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    Are you saying that literally fighting fire with fire is a thing? I may have missed my calling . . . .
    - munk-a 9y ago
      I mean... yes? That is where the saying comes from.
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        Never really thought about it. But it makes sense to cut a "gap" in the forest using fire, to prevent a fire from crossing the gap. Once burned, something aint gonna burn again...
rdtsc 9y ago
> What use does a flamethrower have though besides burning buildings, that a normal gun wouldn't? It can be more effective at clearing bunkers and closed rooms? The military were using these in WWII for trenches, bunkers, clearing brush. My friend's grandpa in US was operating one in the Pacific during WWII. I just brought it was an example how something potentially more deadly than guns or RPGs is not much regulated and how laws are not very rational sometimes.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

> It depends how you look at it. I recently purchased the Federalist Papers so I could have a better understanding of "how" to read it, what the context was, and what types of discussions to anticipate having with those who'd like to look at it differently

928jf0923 9y ago
The Federalist Papers don't matter much in 2017. The doctrinal position of the courts today is the 2nd Amendment is not wide open. It's for defense of self and family IN THE HOME or defense of state. It doesn't restrict states from legalizing further concessions, though. Been reading about it with the Parkland stories. Antonin Scalia wrote that the 2nd is not unlimited, it doesn't allow possession of any type of weapon for any use case, just a couple years before he died. I can't find the article he was quoted in, but around the time of the last SCOTUS case related to 2nd, an NRA exec was on record, I'm paraphrasing, something like "the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting." The right side of the argument allows the romanticized notions to flourish as political ammo.
oarsinsync 9y ago
And what have you learned for those of us who haven’t read the federalist papers? Also, why do they need to be purchased? Isn’t that information in the public domain? Surely enough time has passed and Alexander Hamilton’s family don’t need to continue to profit from it?
- grimjack00 9y ago
  They don't need to be purchased(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1404 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1404). Some people still read physical books, though, which generally requires purchasing if they wish to keep the book.
- selectodude 9y ago
  Can’t speak for the parent, but I buy public domain books because it tends to be cheaper than the paper and toner required to print it. And it looks nicer.

mywittyname 9y ago

This has always been my way of looking at the 2A. It's clearly intended to give citizens the rights and tools to fight wars, otherwise it wouldn't mention it along with militias. Thus, it does seem logical that it extends to armaments of war, such as knives, firearms, artillery, bombs, etc (perhaps even hacking tools). I'm a gun owner myself, and I've (long ago) taken the stance that the 2A isn't really compatible with modern life, as the people who originally wrote it could not have anticipated the weapons militaries deploy today. It makes sense in my mind that it is Congress' responsibility to regulate what it reasonable weapons for civilized society.

donw 9y ago
Congress does regulate those weapons. There's a reason you can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a machine gun, or a rocket launcher. That said, I don't much care for the fact that the requirement to have legal access to machine guns is "be rich enough to buy your way around the law". Personally, I do think we need a complete re-work of the way we treat weapons to reflect the realities of the modern world. (1) We have four hundred million weapons in the United States. It is horribly negligent that safe weapon handling is not taught in schools, at multiple levels. Also a good touchpoint to get police interacting positively with the community. (2) The current background check system should be replaced with a Swiss-style one; e.g., you get a code, valid for say a week or two, that any seller can use to verify that you have passed a background check. This doesn't create a de-facto registry, so no problem getting gun owners (or the NRA) to go for this one. (4) A red-flag law that allows immediate family members and healthcare professionals to temporarily bar an individual from purchasing weapons, with safeguards in-place to keep bad actors from abusing the system (e.g., a psychiatrist that just reports all of his patients to the system because he opposes gun ownership). (5) Removing gun rights only in the case of violent crime. Right now, in most states, misdemeanor assault won't cost you your gun rights, but a felony for tax evasion will. That's ass-backwards. (6) Machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and the like should be available with a license. You really need to be able to show that you can handle these things safely. Right now, it's just "be rich". (7) Treat short-barreled rifles and shotguns as normal firearms, and silencers like any other accessory. (8) Concealed-carry should be the same for police as it is for normal citizens. Same licensing requirements: a one-day course, including a test on safe weapon handling. This also ends gun-free zones: if you have a license, you can carry wherever you want. (9) Open carry needs to work differently for urban and rural areas. The above permit will allow you to open-carry a pistol in an urban area. Rifles, no. Put it in a case. In the countryside, open carry just makes sense. (10) Actually prosecute straw sellers. Buy a gun for somebody that can't legally buy one on their own, you permanently lose your gun rights, plus whatever punishment makes sense. (11) Secure storage requirements. If one of your weapons is stolen and used for a crime, you are legally an accessory if you can not demonstrate that you took reasonable measures to store the weapon securely (e.g., a gun safe or lockable case). This doesn't require police inspections, but provides a strong incentive for personal responsibility. All of this would enjoy massive support from gun owners, and address a lot of existing problems.