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

[Nanny]

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.

---

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.

What are you talking about? The post I replied to was incorrect - it said that we don't have an individual right to keep or bear arms. That is false. The Heller case confirmed that individuals have the right to own guns. McDonald confirmed that this right applies to the states. 

Heller also confirmed that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. Things like needing a license, NFA items require a federal fireams dealer license, restricting use in sensitive areas like schools and federal buildings. 

Our legal system operates on the concept of precedent. All of the briefs, arguments, opinions for and against - are now part of how future jurists interpret the 2A. 

I fail to see how you can conclude that I'm some kind of RWNJ. I'm simply communicating how gun laws work in the USA. As a gun owner I have to know a lot about gun laws, as ignorance of the law is no excuse. 

By your accounting, saving lives from heart disease should be your soap box. Annual gun deaths are peanuts compared to cardiovascular disease. Maybe you should admit that you're not for solving problems with cardiovascular disease and it's all about whatever solution you think you have for guns. 

Or let me ask you this - what is the magic number for gun deaths that would satisfy you and how do you get us there?

[Foxaèr]

I also believe most have good intent.

I am a misanthrope for a reason, because if most people had good intent they would act to change things instead of behaving like a god that prefers to pretend nothing is wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure ... when you restrict your free speech to parchment or the unaided voice.

Some people post shit at 120/minute.

So I see.

---

What do you mean by "unaided voice"? Not sure what you mean by this, but below is what I am seeing. Feel free to correct me if i got it wrong.

The government is there to protect the voice of all sides, thus the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not say "Only when one sect of a population gets everything they want 100% of the time".

I was addressing the "musket" comment. If the right to own guns was intended to be limited to the technology available at the time (i.e. muskets), then by extension, so too would be the right to free speech (i.e., no protection when speaking over PA systems or writing on the internet).

To address the implication in your reply, my support for the right to own guns doesn't mean that I support the untrammelled right to own guns, or more powerful equipment. All rights have limits, and that is a good thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Go easy on yourself, T.hump.

[Brian37]

Some people post shit at 120/minute.

So I see.

---

What do you mean by "unaided voice"? Not sure what you mean by this, but below is what I am seeing. Feel free to correct me if i got it wrong.

The government is there to protect the voice of all sides, thus the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not say "Only when one sect of a population gets everything they want 100% of the time".

I was addressing the "musket" comment. If the right to own guns was intended to be limited to the technology available at the time (i.e. muskets), then by extension, so too would be the right to free speech (i.e., no protection when speaking over PA systems or writing on the internet).

To address the implication in your reply, my support for the right to own guns doesn't mean that I support the untrammelled right to own guns, or more powerful equipment. All rights have limits, and that is a good thing.

Right, and I agree, but right now at this point in history, it is way out of hand.

[Jeanne]

I agree, Brian, you and I both have a right to discuss our viewpoints....for now. Those same powerful people who seek to remove our 2nd amendment rights have been hard at work for many years attempting to do away with our right to speak freely. If you haven't noticed that, then maybe you aren't noticing much that those who would see a Communist America have been doing bit by bit, nudge by nudge...progressive tactics well learned over a century.

I find it interesting, GS, that you went automatically from gun rights to prayer. Do you think those who support our 2nd amendment must be theists in reality? I don't pray because I am an atheist, but damn right that sounds like an amazing firearm!

I find it odd that a gun enthusiast like yourself links other atheists who own guns with theists. Why do you own guns? Why do you have what seems to be some superior attitude about your gun ownership? Why do you believe that only you can own guns and speak about guns and the 2nd in a rational manner? Will your guns not fire bullets into living flesh with the goal of killing?

Another poster just said it was past time that all guns be removed from those of us, who own them. Did they mean from you, as well? Do you believe that will ensure a safer world? No...you aren't that naive, are you?

If it is crime that you mean to scour from the nation, then talk about those tactics that actually work. Our courts should prosecute petty crimes committed with firearms to the fullest extent possible. Assault with a gun handled the same. Then we could begin on crimes committed with knives and when the criminals start using acid, the courts could prosecute them again to the fullest extent possible. Soon...only law-abiding citizens will own guns and knives and acid and the criminal element of society will be totally outlawed and banned. Or something like that...kind of, maybe, possibly...

Yes...let us get all the guns out of the hands of criminals first.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree, Brian, you and I both have a right to discuss our viewpoints....for now.  Those same powerful people who seek to remove our 2nd amendment rights have been hard at work for many years attempting to do away with our right to speak freely.  If you haven't noticed that, then maybe you aren't noticing much that those who would see a Communist America have been doing bit by bit, nudge by nudge...progressive tactics well learned over a century.

I find it interesting, GS, that you went automatically from gun rights to prayer.  Do you think those who support our 2nd amendment must be theists in reality?  I don't pray because I am an atheist, but damn right that sounds like an amazing firearm!  

I find it odd that a gun enthusiast like yourself links other atheists who own guns with theists.  Why do you own guns?  Why do you have what seems to be some superior attitude about your gun ownership?  Why do you believe that only you can own guns and speak about guns and the 2nd in a rational manner?  Will your guns not fire bullets into living flesh with the goal of killing?

Another poster just said it was past time that all guns be removed from those of us, who own them.  Did they mean from you, as well?  Do you believe that will ensure a safer world?  No...you aren't that naive, are you?

If it is crime that you mean to scour from the nation, then talk about those tactics that actually work.  Our courts should prosecute petty crimes committed with firearms to the fullest extent possible.  Assault with a gun handled the same.  Then we could begin on crimes committed with knives and when the criminals start using acid, the courts could prosecute them again to the fullest extent possible.  Soon...only law-abiding citizens will own guns and knives and acid and the criminal element of society will be totally outlawed and banned.  Or something like that...kind of, maybe, possibly...

Yes...let us get all the guns out of the hands of criminals first.

We don't have to wait for one to do the other. Has anyone said we need to cure heart disease before working on cancer? Of course not.

[Brian37]

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.

---

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.

What are you talking about? The post I replied to was incorrect - it said that we don't have an individual right to keep or bear arms. That is false. The Heller case confirmed that individuals have the right to own guns. McDonald confirmed that this right applies to the states. 

Heller also confirmed that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. Things like needing a license, NFA items require a federal fireams dealer license, restricting use in sensitive areas like schools and federal buildings. 

Our legal system operates on the concept of precedent. All of the briefs, arguments, opinions for and against - are now part of how future jurists interpret the 2A. 

I fail to see how you can conclude that I'm some kind of RWNJ. I'm simply communicating how gun laws work in the USA. As a gun owner I have to know a lot about gun laws, as ignorance of the law is no excuse. 

By your accounting, saving lives from heart disease should be your soap box. Annual gun deaths are peanuts compared to cardiovascular disease. Maybe you should admit that you're not for solving problems with cardiovascular disease and it's all about whatever solution you think you have for guns. 

Or let me ask you this - what is the magic number for gun deaths that would satisfy you and how do you get us there?

Our legal system once allowed slavery. Our legal system once denied women the right to vote.

Just because we have or can right now, does not make it a good idea long term.

I am really getting sick of that argument after REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY saying this is not about RIGHTS but attitude. It is about one lobby and horrible fear mongering marketing. 

Magic number? The lower the better. The less deaths by firearm the better. Unless you think 36,000 deaths by homicide and suicide and accidental and domestic murder is peachy keen. 

But if you want to argue numbers, please tell me how many more firearms do we make and sell because we already average 3 for every human living here. Would 500 million firearms be enough? How about 1 billion firearms? FUCK IT lets make it 10 billion firearms. 

I get sick of saying I am not calling for a total 100% ban on every single firearm. 

I am sick of how people ignore our current climate and lack of pragmatism. I am sick of saying that the NRA is not the safety/rights org it once was. If it were still what it began as, I would have no problem with it.

Again, even on the issue of other things, such as government representation, there is a bullshit attitude of "less government no matter what". If we never grew government to represent a growing population and only had the original 13 colonies for the House and Senate in present day, you would literally have a minority dictating to a majority.

I am sick of the right  scaring the shit out of everyone using doomsday marketing on every subject, not just firearms. 

If all it took was "legal at time of buy" to reduce firearm death, and all it took was good intent, we would not see the high numbers of firearms deaths we do. It is a fallacy and flat out lie that only criminals are the problem. It is a fallacy and a lie that liberals are arguing for a firearm free society. It is a fallacy and a lie that it is legal vs legal, that is not the argument we are making. 

MOST firearm injuries and deaths are in the home and or with someone the user is familiar with. You can fly under the radar not having a record at the time of buy. You can be mentally ill but never documented at time of buy. You can be legal at time of buy and have a alcohol or drug addiction and never be arrested. You can be legal at time of buy but an child/spouse abuser who has never been arrested.

You can be legal with no record then go on to fuck up. Now again, I don't say that to call for an all out ban. I say that because and again, the user is more likely to hurt themselves or someone they know than they are to successfully defend themselves from a complete stranger.

In homicide cases, any investigator will tell you, they always start with the family, then move to friends and co workers because the people the dead know are their most likely suspects. Most firearm injuries and deaths start out with a legally purchased firearm. Kids and women in the users home and suicide are far more likely to happen than a stranger on stranger gunfight.

Unless you face those numbers you will not reduce the deaths.

[Nanny]

Brian - it's a simple fact that there are loads of firearms in the USA. No amount of internet writing will change that.

Deaths from any cause that can be prevented should be a very grave concern for all of us. Nobody is arguing that it's not. You're either misreading or misrepresenting statements.

You're upset because you think there are too many guns. We get it. You think that anyone who tries to engage in civil discussion about it is a RWNJ. You're entitled to that opinion but it is a very narrow view.

There are obvious gaps in your understanding of how firearms are regulated. For some reason you view these facts as an attack on your position. They're not. These are just facts.

You argue that the law needs to evolve. I have pointed out that it does evolve. Legal precedent is how laws and our interpretation of them evolve. It is settled law that the 2A applies to individuals and it is incorporated to the states. This is the law of the land. Yes, it may change, but all future litigation has to consider Heller and McDonald, whether anyone likes it or not.

Then you get personal and position your arguments in absolute terms. If you disagree with Brian you're a blood thirsty irresponsible right wing nutjob who values objects over lives. This sounds like a page out of the SJW playbook. And it's muddling the personal with the facts. It's akin to saying if you're not with Brian, you're against Brian. This is a false dichotomy.

You seem to judge rather than think.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, and I agree, but right now at this point in history, it is way out of hand.

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