Why? She's completely correct. We have a right to firearms, a right to bear arms. We don't have a right to unlimited destructive power, there is no right to a bazooka or rocket launcher. If you can't draw the line somewhere, than everything is available, including the latter.
I can't believe I'm reading this on FR. Son, you need to educate yourself on the intent of the 2nd Amendment and the definition of "arms". Oy Vey.
We have the right to bear ARMS. These are military weapons. In the Revolutionary War and even the Cival War, arms including artillery were supplied by those who organized the militias, not the government. The idea of the Second Ammendment is to protect our rights from an overzealous government. Look at US history: the government has NEVER protected those rights. It always has been the duty of the citizen to keep our government in check. Those of late have shirked that duty.
You'll find plenty here who disagree.
Groan...here we go again.
The Founding Fathers fought a war using their own arms, including personally-owned cannon and battleships. They wrote the 2nd Amendment without any restriction on size, and did so to ensure the people could, if need be, take on the gov't. The Constitution allows Congress to grant "Letters of Marque", permitting private citizens to take on foreign powers with their own presumably large-scale arms. Yes, the big stuff is crew-served and expensive and rare; absolutely nothing the Founding Fathers ever wrote indicated approval of any limitations on arms ownership of any kind.
The point of the 2nd Amendment is to permit the people the ability to take on attackers/tyrrants of any degree. Remember: the Founding Fathers took on the world's military superpower of the day - the thought of limiting the 2nd Amendment to one-man arms would have been absolutely preposterous to those who used their own cannons and battleships to win their freedom.
You want AK-47 styles banned then? I assume that'll mean all semi-auto rifles right?
If not, which ones are 'ok'?
"We don't have a right to unlimited destructive power,"
I applied for a concealed carry on a nuke just last week! ;)
I don't know what to think on the issue of assault weapons, but there's sense in what you say. Some weapons have no place except in the military.
That is correct you should be able to have any arm that the military has. Most cannot afford F16's or M1A1 Abrahms Tanks. During most of our history you could possess all kinds of weaponry, crime didn't really start getting out of hand until they banned full auto weapons in the 20's or 30's.
Actually, you and she are incorrect. We have the right to bear the same arms that are in use by the military no matter what time period it is. This is the intent of the Second Amendment. This was also defined in US vs. Miller circa 1939 USSC.
And yes, we do have the right to a bazooka and rocket launchers. The line should be drawn at the point of indeterminate area effect weapons. What these consist of are weapons that once fired and detonated, we no longer have control over their destructive purpose due to fallout or residual effects. This includes chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and biological weapons.
The reason I bring this up is that we not only have the right to own these weapons but the duty and responsibility to do so for defense of our nation. Remember that the mainland US was not attacked in WW2 by the Japanese specifically because they knew that the citizens are armed.
My personal feeling on the issue is that anyone that promotes bans of any kind is subverting the US Constitution, is a traitor, and should be either jailed or deported immediately and permanently.
Mike