Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Brian37]

I give the government my consent to take away all your guns.

^^^^^^ This does NOT help and is a utopia regardless. 

Now far right worshipers, KEEP READING THIS, I don't agree what Luthrinae wants, even if I wanted that, it isn't pragmatic or realistic.

We are stuck with what the founders wrote. NO I am NOT for banning every single firearm. I am not against hunting or target shooting, not even against home defense. 

It is realistic to say, we don't vet properly. It is reasonable to say, you can have a firearm with PROPER vetting and training. You can have a riffle or handgun 8 bullet max. But, when at home not in use, keep it locked up, keep it away from kids at all times. Assume it is loaded at all times. Never point it at anyone. Keep it out of the hands of the mentally ill and out of the hands of abusers. And nobody should be allowed to stockpile pretending to be an army.

Your comment does not help, and that is just as bad as the far right do nothing. 

Liberals hate it when they accuse us of tyranny, lets not give them that fuel by saying unrealistic crap like like your quote. No firearms will never happen. You can change things without chasing impossible utopias.

---

But people aren't allowed to own machine guns or howitzers.

I own a fully functional Browning M2 .05 cal. HMG, and I have a completely legal license for it.

Yes, ok, but again, if you agree not everyone should have one, like your cousins then the issue isn't about you personally, but our collective sample rate as part of a long term attitude.

Didn't you also say in another post that you keep them locked up at a gun range and no longer keep them at home? 

If our government said, "Look, we will buy it back in the full amount so you don't lose money" and they said, "We wont prevent you from buying something else as a firearm" would that be theft or an all out ban, or a compromise?

To me that is no different than car companies being told by the government, look, you can keep making cars, but you need to get the lead out of gas, and you need better safety features. 

If every firearm owner thought like you, i would have no problem with most, but the problem is not every firearm owner thinks like you. 

If I owned a firearm and government said, "nobody needs to own that particular model" I wouldn't object to that as long as they paid me for the money I spent on it, and I could replace it with something else. 

I wish every firearm owner thought like you, but again, not enough do think like you.

---

Perhaps somewhat in line with the above, I'd advocate (at least theoretically) - in the same way that some places put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes - for guns to come with a warning, or an advertisement, or a contract to be signed, that says, essentially: "If you buy this gun for self-defense, just be aware that it is far more likely to put a bullet in you or a family member than in a criminal.  So, every time you imagine this gun stopping a home invader, also imagine it shooting your spouse or children.  Just as long as we're clear about that."

If that had been the marketing the entire time, it might work, but it is way after the fact.

Gun safety organizations have been screaming those stats for decades. I doubt if those warning labels were mandated on guns the far right would pay attention to them.

And especially with kids. You can make it about the parent all you want, but if the kid gets affected by it, how does the kid have any say? That is as bad as second hand smoke. Even today I see parents smoke holding babies or in a car with closed windows and kids in the back seat. Gun ranges with instructors didn't stop a girl from accidentally killing her instructor with an uzi. 

The vetting matters, I'd agree with those labels too, if I thought they would help.

---

Perhaps somewhat in line with the above, I'd advocate (at least theoretically) - in the same way that some places put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes - for guns to come with a warning, or an advertisement, or a contract to be signed, that says, essentially: "If you buy this gun for self-defense, just be aware that it is far more likely to put a bullet in you or a family member than in a criminal.  So, every time you imagine this gun stopping a home invader, also imagine it shooting your spouse or children.  Just as long as we're clear about that."

If it were possible, I'd mandate anyone seeking to own a firearm AT THE AGE OF 21, could have one, would have to visit a morgue and view the bodies of victims of suicide and homicide due to gun use. Or at least watch an unfiltered documentary in a gun safety class of firearm deaths. When I was in high school taking drivers ed we watched documentaries of car crash victims. These were real cases.

Again, not to shock people into never buying one, but more to serve as a warning that this can happen. Much like we know texting and driving is fucking stupid and driving should be taken seriously.

---

I think far too many people who own firearms dont think about just the speed of the average bullet travels when the pin hits the casing and ignites the gunpowder. 2,500ft per second, or 1,700mph.

So when I hear the hero wannabes talk about "if this happend, I'd"...... I dont see how at that speed one could dodge a bullet if someone already has one aimed at you especially at close range in terms of feet, not yards or hundreds of yards, but in your face, how the math works with "the good guy always wins in response" when the other person already has the drop on you with their firearm and you haven't reached for yours yet.

I don't see the math as being there for the well intended if someone already has a gun aimed at you with the speed the bullet travels. The cases that one successfully uses one are the ones by trained people who have warning going in.

Even in the Vegas Tea party shooter couple, they murdered two armed cops, then walked over to the Wal Mart, well intended armed civilian had the drop on the guy, but walked past the shooters armed girlfriend not knowing she was armed, she killed the guy. So again, good intent isn't enough with a firearm.