On guns, where does one draw the line

[TheBeardedDude]

(04-02-2013 03:24 PM)germanyt Wrote:  There is a difference between ordinance and arms. Currently no gun (arms) is banned outright in the US. Even fully automatic .50 caliber belt fed machine guns can be owned if you submit to the proper background checks and acquire the appropriate license. The next weapon on the ladder would probably be something along the lines of an RPG or grenade launcher. Again, a weapon that a US civilian can own with the appropriate license. Next step might be a surface to air missile. That is classified as ordinance and is not legal in the hands of a civilian.

Then my new suggestion is to change the word "gun" to "ordnance" and that solves the whole debate.

[germanyt]

(04-02-2013 03:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 03:24 PM)germanyt Wrote:  There is a difference between ordinance and arms. Currently no gun (arms) is banned outright in the US. Even fully automatic .50 caliber belt fed machine guns can be owned if you submit to the proper background checks and acquire the appropriate license. The next weapon on the ladder would probably be something along the lines of an RPG or grenade launcher. Again, a weapon that a US civilian can own with the appropriate license. Next step might be a surface to air missile. That is classified as ordinance and is not legal in the hands of a civilian.

Then my new suggestion is to change the word "gun" to "ordnance" and that solves the whole debate.

But why? Changing the word wouldn't solve anything. Not one single proposed piece of legislation would have prevented Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc.

[TheBeardedDude]

So the defining line between ordnance and guns is arbitrary anyways? Why draw that line?

[germanyt]

(04-02-2013 03:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So the defining line between ordnance and guns is arbitrary anyways? Why draw that line?

Not really that arbitrary. Guns are generally able to be fired by one person with no assistance with the exception of maybe a mount or bipod. One cannot shoulder fire a surface to air missile or 76MM cannon.

[TheBeardedDude]

And if our technology made that possible, then it would be a gun?

Technology changes and so do our conventional thoughts on weapons.

[germanyt]

(04-02-2013 03:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And if our technology made that possible, then it would be a gun?

Technology changes and so do our conventional thoughts on weapons.

I suppose it's something to consider in the future. But right now things haven't changed much. Guns that the average soldier carried then were carried by civilians. Hell if anything things are more strict now as the majority of people do not have access to all the weapons carried my our military men and women. A cannon was pretty much treated the same 200 years ago as it is today. The only thing that has really changed is the design of the projectile and the accuracy with which we aim. With current gun powder propellants it'll never be possible to make effective use of a 3", 10 lb projectile capable of flying 3 or 4 miles and it also be shoulder fired. If a hand held weapon becomes available that can cause the type of damage a surface to surface missile causes I'm sure it'll be banned.

[TheBeardedDude]

But guns today are capable of substantially more destruction than those of the time when that was written. It is not just a matter of its relative deadlines (ie, it isn't as deadly as a nuke) but its necessity too.

[germanyt]

(04-02-2013 03:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But guns today are capable of substantially more destruction than those of the time when that was written. It is not just a matter of its relative deadlines (ie, it isn't as deadly as a nuke) but its necessity too.

But our current weapons are on par with the ones they are designed to fight against. For the most part at least. The 2nd amendment exists to give citizens the right to fight back an oppressive and tyrannical government. A militia would stand no chance at this if it uses muskets vs the governments M16s. The weapons available to the public need to be and should be comparable to the lethality and effectiveness of the arms of the government. Not to mention banning something like AR15s won't stop mass shootings. One can just as easily kill 15 kids in a class room with a 22 pistol as they can with an M4 carbine. Especially with the response time of the police and the fact that no other person on a school campus is likely to have a gun to be used in self defense.

[TrulyX]

(04-02-2013 04:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  The 2nd amendment exists to give citizens the right to fight back an oppressive and tyrannical government.

I'd hope not.

Especially in context, that wouldn't make much sense and would be insanely ridiculous.

[Chas]

(04-02-2013 05:01 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 04:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  The 2nd amendment exists to give citizens the right to fight back an oppressive and tyrannical government.

I'd hope not.

Especially in context, that wouldn't make much sense and would be insanely ridiculous.

But it is historically accurate.