4 ms·
> orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those und
by kcmastrpc 7y ago
> orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights
They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?
- throwaway082729 7y agoCan you conceal these cannons when you walk into a mall before shooting others?
- tempguy9999 7y agoAs the US allows private guns to prevent government tyranny, in people's views wouldn't it also be right to allow privately owned cannons, assorted artillery, explosives and the entire military toolkit (so long as they could pay for it)? After all it would greatly help civilians throw off oppression, and that's what it's all about. This isn't sark, just pointing out a reasonable logical destination for the reasoning.
- mgkimsal 7y ago"so long as they could pay for it" what if they can't pay for it? are gun manufacturers now violating the "equal protection" clause? they're denying people the ability to exercise a constitutional amendment simply based on their ability to pay.
- tempguy9999 7y agoCurrently it doesn't matter whether they can pay for it or not as legally they can't have it (gov't tyranny?) So let's ignore the cost; in principle, for defence against an out of control government for which guns are needed, are USAians who are pro gun also pro the idea private citizens owning serious artillery, explosives, tanks etc?
- jfnixon 7y agoIt is legal to own tanks and flame throwers now.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kcmastrpc 7y agoIf you have enough money you can actually own and operate fully automatic weapons, cannons, flame throwers, artillery, etc. ... and if you're the leader of a large enough nation, the US will even sell you planes and tanks. In our shortsightedness we are dismissing the future possibility of foreign invasions, domestic tyranny, and civil war. Let's consider the former; if the US has registration laws and China invades/wins, then all of a sudden Chinese officials have the addresses of every potential source of violent dissent in their hands. I realize the threat of invasion isn't really practical today, but with policies we put in place today we'd effectively be putting our ancestors in the worst possible situation in the event they ever had to defend themselves against tyranny whether foreign or domestic. I understand that gun violence sucks, but regulation/registration has consequence - we may see benefit, some of it we may never see but our children will (for a rather recent example, see Venezuela). Our communities are living with these monsters, we are ignoring them because our lives have become so centered around live news, social media, and debating over the internet instead of talking to each other. Banning guns, knives, bats, fertilizer, whatever isn't going to stop this epidemic - and doing so will just prevent ourselves from being able to prevent those who are determined to do so.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoSure, they could even use it against enemies of America too. One of the other rights the Constitution gives Congress along with the right to declare war is the right to issue letters of marque, meaning it is still legal today for the US government to give any random citizen the right to raid a foreign state