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

[Brian37]

Stop discussing rights while skipping the responsibility part, and even the 2nd has the word "regulated" in it, and regulations are what hold us to being responsible. 

You have a right to a car, you don't have a right to a 5 lane wide monster truck on a public highway. 

You have a right to drink beer, but not drink and drive. You have a right to drink beer, but not sell it to kids.

Bans on some things are not oppression. You have a right to buy Asprin, but without a medical degree you don't have a right to prescribe codine or morphine. 

Yes we have a First Amendment too, and part of that is my right to say we have a problem with how we view firearms as a society. 

Regulations are not oppressing anyone's rights, not regulating speech and not regulation of firearms.

So many issues with this post.

Nobody is ignoring the responsibility of firearms ownership in this thread. To use your own tricks, go find where anyone says that it should be a free-for-all?

I pointed out that AR-15s without selectable fire are by definition not machine guns. I also pointed out that there is the 2A and then there are laws like the NFA that carve out things like machine guns (>1 bang per squeeze). Then there are state laws and local ordinances. I have friends who don't want firearms in their houses and I do not carry when I visit them because their house, their rules. 

Show me where I have the "right" to own a car, please. If I have the resources I can purchase a car. Owning a car is not an inalienable right. 

Show me where I have the "right" to drink beer, please. If I'm under a certain magic age I clearly do not have that right. 

Your drinking and driving example is telling. We already have laws that cover injury caused to other persons. Who is harmed if Tex drinks a couple of beers and then drives home safely? Where exactly is the harm? You won't find one because drink-driving is a malum prohibitum law. It's bad because we say so. If some drunk crashes into my car but does no harm, I have the legal right to restitution. The drunk is legally accountable for her actions. What if it was some fanboi street racer instead? what exactly changes if someone operates negligently, without influence of chemistry, and causes harm? Should we pass laws that say if fanboi street racers do harm they can be double-secret punished? Should we allow traffic stops on suspicion of being a fanboi?

Who chooses whether bans on some things are oppression? Who is the umpire? Be careful not to say "the majority." The rights and interests of the minority are legally protected.

So you're just mad because, in your opinion, you think there are too many guns in the USA. To that I say there's no putting the cork back in. You can either choose to own firearms or not to own them. That's your right. 

It's clear that you have a passing knowledge of some firearms stuff, but you really don't understand how guns are regulated here. There are hundreds of pages of legislation at every level. So other than just wanting fewer guns, what is your point?

Here's a challenge for you. Try to reply without cursing.

Far too many are. And unfortunately it seems you are too.

36,000 gun deaths per year is not a passing knowledge, that is documented fact.

Far right gun worshipers argue like theists, "what would you know about my holy book".

98 people a DAY die from use of a firearm. If America's collective attitude about firearms were sane, we would not be seeing those numbers. 

Same with economics coming from the right. If the rich always got everything right nobody would be bitching. If the rich got everything right, there would be no need for voting.

I am getting sick about "responsible gun owners", because this is about ATTITUDE not individuals, climate not individuals. And again, I cant even point to Gawdzilla, or my friend John who grew up with firearms. And you probably WONT read what the family of the inventor of the AR 15 said either. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fami...ut-n593356

All I am getting from the far right is stonewalling and excuses to shoot more and sell more without regards to the 36,000 gun deaths on average per year. 98 deaths on average per day.

---

You actually do not have the "right" to own a gun, either.  At least not in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the second amendment.  The courts rectified the interpreted meaning to make crazy gun owners happy, which was a mistake.

SCOTUS confirmed in Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. McDonald confirmed that the 2A applies to the states under the 14th amendment. 

Heller

McDonald

Also, just because you have a medical degree confers no prescribing rights. You need a license from the state to prescribe or dispense drugs.

SCALIA, so you wont even listen to him when a GOP SCOTUS says it is NOT a free for all?

Just admit you are not for solving problems with gun deaths and it is all about protecting the object and not human lives.