As I understand it though RPGs are "destructive devices", not arms, which puts it in to the category of grenades, bombs, etc. I guess I'm just not a believer that Joe Gang Member should have a stock of RPGs, grenades, and poison gas on hand. I doubt that was the Founders' intent either.

 

You didn't actually answer my question though. I take it then you DO believe any American citizen should be able to own a nuke or other destructive device?

BTW, for an interesting home-defense weapon, look up the "Davey Crockett".

 

Not entirely accurate. A group of untrained, barely organized allahu-snackbar fighters have been a thorn in the side of the greatest military in the world for the past fourteen years. Armed primarily with only AK47s and a few improvised explosives. It's not about an all-out-war with planes and tanks. A war fought on US soil would be an insurgency. It wouldn't be about winning a fight. It would be about making it more trouble than it's worth.

Technically, based on the ATF, you can modify a friggin' shotgun to the point where it's classified as a "destructive device."

im tired of the "hurr, durr, the founding fathers di'int know wut weppinz we would hav," arguments. If that's the case, then the first amendment only applies to pen and ink and printing presses. In those days, the musket was the equivalent of the M4a1. The Kentucky Long Rifle was the M16a3. The mortars and cannons equivocate to modern mortars, tanks, RPGs, and artillery.

In truth, I honestly don't care. It's of no consequence to me. But there are a lot of ****ing morons who would like to ban (confiscate) all guns. My job is to provide an equally extreme pro-gun view point, so that when we inevitably have to compromise, it falls in the middle of the two extremes, rather than in the halfway point between the left-extreme and the already-too-far-reaching laws that are already on the books. The only law I would really change is, I believe full-autos should be legal for manufacture for civilians, like they were up until 1986.

 

I agree with this. Look at how much trouble Afghanistan citizens have made for any outsider that goes there. Assuming your conqueror doesn't believe in genocide, you don't have to match the government to fight back.

This is where we are probably parting ways. A musket or early rifle fired one round at a time. A cannon could fire lots of shot and wipe out lots of people at once. An "arm" then to the founders would be something much more personal than a squad firing a cannon or (loading an RPG with an explosive warhead) and firing it into a crowded place. A unit's heavy weapons could have done this in early times, but not an individual soldier's. It's not being disingenuous, but it's a different way of looking at the past. You think that since the revolutionary war citizen's weapons were equal to the soldier's, the founders would say that the same thing should apply today. I think the founders meant that an individual should possess the arms to shoot another individual, not *many* individuals, based on the reasoning that if they had meant that, they wouldn't have written "possess arms", but would have said "possess weapons" or something.

 

Yup.

Okay, then. We can agree to disagree. But now that you've asked a few questions, let me.

Where would you draw the line? What should be legal? What is covered under arms?

Full-auto rifles?
Semi-auto rifles?
Shotguns?
Pistols?
PDWs? SBR/SBS?
Magazine restrictions?
Restrictions of "military-style" features, and if so which ones?
Caliber restrictions?
Ammo purchase quantity restrictions?
National registry?

 

Full-auto rifles? no
Semi-auto rifles? yes
Shotguns? yes
Pistols? yes
PDWs? SBR/SBS? yes
Magazine restrictions? no
Restrictions of "military-style" features, and if so which ones? no
Caliber restrictions? <=50 cal.
Ammo purchase quantity restrictions? no
National registry? no

Destructive Devices (rpgs, grenades, mines) No.

 

Not too bad then. Nice to see you think PDW, SBS, and SBR should be legal-- they're currently NFA'd and a six-nine month waiting period and a $200 tax stamp is considered too much trouble for melt gunnies like myself to consider buying them. So, I agree with you better than I agree with the current laws.

I forgot to ask about suppressors-- should there still be a $200 NFA tax stamp and 6-9 month waiting period on them? Bear in mind their effects are dramatically overexaggerated on tv, and their primary use is cutting down on hearing damage for shooters, especially in home defense and hunting situations where ear protection isn't typically used.

 

I don't have a problem with short barreled shotguns or rifles - although I think the latter is pretty pointless, or silencers.

Again, my problem is with weapons that give individuals the power to kill a lot of people at once. Some people are insane, and that's not a power that should be readily available to them.

 

Meh. SBRs are kind of outdated imo, now that Bullpups like my Tavor are so readily available. But if I was to build an ar15, I'd love to build a 14.5 or 10.5 with a suppressor.



That being said, the deadliest mass shooting in US history (VTech) was done with two small-caliber pistols (9mm and .22) and he fired an average of 10 rounds per magazine.

 

I have a 10mm pistol in Fallout 4 that is like modded and shit and it is pretty cool. 24 rounds a magazine.

 

Probably the same one.

 

I'm running a fully upgraded Overseer's Guardian-- fires two projectiles for every shot. Awesome damage. I just wish the reflex sights were a bit brighter.

 

Sorry to intercede here, but I would say NONE. Maybe a musket or two!

 

You assume the military wants to wipe them out. It's much better to have a permanent engagement to justify their bloated budget. As long as there are people to shoot, it's easy to scare people into giving you the resources to do it.

 

But ... but ... but ... my immersion!

 

Excellent opinion. Now, feel free to take it, apply a liberal amount of lubrication, and shove it up your ass.

Rrright.

 

Same to you sweetie!

 

It's all a losing argument, from the anti-gunners stand point, they want to chip away at the 2nd amendment until its meaningless, (like people like Morgotha, by saying on the surface they support the 2nd amendment but then always adding a "BUT" to the statement followed by a series of restrictions, which destroy the 2nd amendment and puts them not in the camp of 2nd amendment supporters but on the side of anti gun), by defining and cornering and restricting it down to a nice little defined box of what is okay, which they would ultimately be happy with that ending up being a dull pocket knife with a 2 inch blade, however 10 years later even they would find a way to restrict that to a 1/2 inch blade.

Keep in mind the history of the United States, where did we come from, what is our origin, and why and when were the Constitution and bill of writes written.

We formed our country by throwing off the domination of a foreign power IE BIG GOVERNMENT. Back then there was no bigger government on the planet than Great Britain. These things were written right after this and with that in mind, to ensure freedom and a balance of power between the government and the people, that no government even one elected by the people could dominate the people and dictate to the people as a dictator.

This balance of power wasn't and isn't just about the people being armed to fight the military. Back then this country had no formal military to speak of, this is about fighting the military's jets or submarines, but to focus on the local level, the constable, the police force... insurrection doesn't get confronted necessarily initially by the military, that's a lot further down the road, it's confronted first on the local level with the local municipal powers that be, such as the local sheriff or police. This is where the balance of power the founding fathers saw just as important as the federal balance of power, it starts locally and the local sheriff doesn't have a F-16. (This is also why there is such a problem with the militarization of the local police force, with the recent events of the federal government allowing local police forces to purchase surplus military weapons and vehicles, giving local police force multiplication to military squad level or above is not what the founding fathers wanted.)

 

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that citizens would be armed so they could participate in a well-regulated militia. The alternative, at the time, being a standing army.

This point was elaborated by Alexander Hamilton in 1788 in Federalist 29, which reads in part:

This point was noted by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 when he wrote the majority opinion in DC v Heller:

That said, Scalia went on to state that individuals did have certain individual rights to bear arms:

Scalia went on to rule that the 2nd Amendment gave a person to register a handgun for home protection. But he declined to expand the right any further, writing:

However, it may be a long time before the Court takes up gun ownership again. In June of this year the Court declined to hear a challenge from the NRA to a San Francisco law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons under lock and key. Four justices are required to vote to take up case; only Scalia and Thomas voted to do so.

 

I'm just going to go with suspension of disbelief and say that the Soviet RPG was yanked from a cache that was about to disposed of before everything went to hell.
These ragtags were trying to hold this town down and failed.
Dude with the RPG got spooked for whatever reason and tried to climb the roadblock fence they set up and ended up getting impaled after a car tried to run through it.