n/t

brilliant and spot on.

Let me interrupt this thread to ask, did you mean as interpreted by the NRA?

Just wondering, as your statement could be interrupted a number of different ways.

No problem, sorry for interrupting.

now this some cool stuff!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular

...that firearm design evolves. That's the crux of this whole argument.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear.
THAT'S the 'crux of this whole argument' ...and of course the point of the cartoon.





(I hope my reply doesn't eliminate me from ever getting another DUzy)

The state, the militia, and the people.

And it is not the fault of the people if "well-regulated militia" is currently set by Congress to simply be a male age 17 thru 45.

wtf?
there is no argument here- by your 'interpretation' of the 2nd, we can therefore have nukes or sonic plasma guns.

what should the waiting period for lasers and/or light sabers be?

here is something i'll call the nra's 1st commandment-

Let's make sure everyone who has any extra $$ at all buys multiple guns,
Because the gun maker's profits have slowed as we exceed the point of 1 gun for each of the 330 million people in america.
Military rifles are better for hunting small-to-large size game and shooting at paper and beer cans,
and they are also safer because guns aren't dangerous at all, yet at the same time they are scarier, and people will run away from you,
or look at you weird in walmart, but don't worry, because walmart, where you buy your guns, is also dangerous.
So bring your gun when you go there to buy more, and don't hesitate to shoot someone if they make you nervous and get too close.
Maybe just wave the gun at them if they look at you weird, unless you're in Florida, in that case, blast away.

i guess their 2nd would be-
make people as paranoid as possible, about both crime AND losing the chance to buy more of some kinds of guns that they already have.

just admit it, the nra WOULDN'T be happy if there were a BILLION guns in the US- they'd say we are outnumbered by china.

That would mean that men, and men only, between the ages of 17 and 45 would have the right to own a gun. Women, and men 46+, would only have a privilege, granted and revoked by the state.


The nuke argument is bullshit, and you're plenty smart enough to know it. The only people making it are those that are pro-control. The "public safety" clause, the same one that prevents people from falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, also applies to destructive devices. That is why full-auto guns, explosive devices, and non-sporting guns over .50 caliber are tightly regulated: they are indiscriminate in their destruction.

And since sonic plasma rifles and light sabers are currently fictional weapons, I can't comment on their legality. If a "sonic plasma gun" fired some kind of energy discharge that exploded matter upon impact, it would probably be illegal. If it stunned or fried a central nervous system upon impact, it would probably be legal.

If a hand-held combat laser ever became practical, it would probably be legal, as it would not be indiscriminate in use. I don't know if it would be more effective than a bullet-firing gun; laser beams don't really have any kinetic energy impact. But I would not expect them to be illegal.


And since you spend your time worry about rifles that are used to kill about 200 people a year, maybe you should consider whether you're paranoid as well.

And it is not the fault of the people if "well-regulated militia" is currently set by Congress to simply be a male age 17 thru 45.

if you want to read it literally, women and 46 year olds should be surprised they can't have guns, aren't in the militia, and aren't required to defend the free state.

the nuke argument is supposed to point out that if you take an argument to one extreme, you might want to consider the other as a counterpoint.

The "public safety" clause, the same one that prevents people from falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, also applies to destructive devices. That is why full-auto guns, explosive devices, and non-sporting guns over .50 caliber are tightly regulated: they are indiscriminate in their destruction.

hoo BOY? whatever happened to 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'?!?!?

how can a gun be indiscriminate in destruction if it is 'just a tool'? just a harmless object?

ANNNND, if people kill people, shouldn't we maybe NOT give them any gun they want? for profit's sake?

also, you are planning on hunting elephants with some sort of 'sporting cannon'?

the 'fire' thing- i'll go with experience here: (from before senate hearing)
Discussing his opposition to President Obama’s gun safety plan, Cruz suggested that increasing gun access among poor women in urban neighborhoods could reduce violent crime, argued that an assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional and accused the administration of exploiting the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to advance a “partisan agenda.” Schumer, a long-time gun safety advocate fired back. He pointed out that the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller established an individual right to bear arms, but gave the government wide latitude to regulate guns:

SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA [National Rifle Association], in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/20/1474481/schumer-rips-ted-cruzs-pro-gun-propaganda-that-just-is-dumb/

***(thanks for making me look this next one up. awesome! 7 years ago!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Pulsed_Energy_Projectile

Maximum pain is aim of new US weapon
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7077
The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.

"I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research," says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."

-skip-

One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, is entitled "Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas".

***

If a hand-held combat laser ever became practical, it would probably be legal, as it would not be indiscriminate in use.
laser beams don't really have any kinetic energy impact. But I would not expect them to be illegal.


people get busted for pointing laser POINTERS at planes. they're gonna hafta loosen up those laws a touch!

better WARN THE NRA!!!

i'm not just worried about ARs and such- a glock pistol with a 33-round mag ($50 for the mag) is THE SAME as an AR, to me. more dangerous because you can hide it.
i'm more worried about the crappy laws, thanks to the nra.

you are the one being paranoid about a gun that you already have and won't be taken away, and selfish about something as trivial (except to innocent people who might get killed) as an extra 5 or 10 or 20 rounds.

it takes a few seconds to change a mag. who really cares what size it is unless you are AT WAR?!?!

A bullet does not affect anything beside what it is aimed at. A bomb or shell or mine or rocket has a zone of destruction. If I used a grenade to defend myself, the shock wave and shrapnel will randomly fly in all directions. A grenade is indicriminate when it explodes.

A grenade is not a gun. Both are tools, but a grenade or other explosive device cannot be used for self-defense due to public safety issues. I think we can agree that people mining their front lawns with claymores and bouncing betties would be a public safety hazard, yes?




I'm not arguing that a ban on so-called "assault weapons" is unconstitutional, I'm arguing that it is bad law being passed by cynical lawmakers that know it's useless but have sensed that they can get some liberal street cred for the midterms by "taking on the gun lobby".




People get busted for shooting at planes, too. Don't point a gun at a plane, and you won't get in trouble.




And I don't own anything that would fall under either the previous expired or current proposed ban. In fact, it's specifically exempted.

the nra seems to have this idea that the gun has been used 'as designed and intended', even when someone shoots themselves (on purpose or by accident) or someone else (same). so no lawsuits. screwy.

twisted, i think.

guns are designed to kill- animals, enemy soldiers, and criminals.

not- someone you're mad at or want to rob or even really an attacker unless they are going to kill you.

look at it this way- a semi-auto rifle IS indiscriminate- not even the nra is saying use them for self-defense on the street (at least they won't say it in public for fear of ridicule, so obviously dangerous, can go through + kill multiple people with one round, etc.

so how the HELL is it good INSIDE a house? if its dark, how the hell does an intruder know what kind of gun it is or why would they care? handguns are also lighter + quicker to grab + aim.

you have it backwards- how is doing something the people who elected you WANT cynical? and the gun lobby SUCKS!

an actual laser weapon would probably take down a plane pretty easily (remember star wars? not the movie?) so, i doubt they'll be available at walmart.

glad your gat is exempt, have fun with it, don't sweat the laws. they'll be ok!

http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2013/01/second-amendment-rights/