Mike_Rupp said:
Sorry Kris. The common law definition of arms was a weapon carried by an individual on their person, i.e. a pistol, rifle, not a cannon. Good try though. Keep on using those tired old recycled talking points.
Oh, "carried"? Well then... I suppose you'd like me to be able to walk down to the corner store and buy one of these?
Admit it, we have to accept some basic regulations. If you want to live without them completely, go live in Somalia, the self-interest driven Libertarian paradise.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7QDv4sYwjO0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Part of the problem is that a lot of people equate AR-15s with miniguns, and 30 round magazines with belt-feeds and backpacks full of ammo. People who know anything about guns know a glock can be as dangerous in the hands of a mass murderer in close quarters as can an evil black rifle.
We're simply not going to get anywhere on this by just saying "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!". We've gotta offer intelligent counter-proposals, and suggesting that there can be no limitation on the kind of weapon a person owns obviously doesn't count. I don't want a 10 round mag limit in the US, I've been grumbling about it for ages here in CA - but how 'bout a 30 round limit? How about background checks for all sales?
The way I see the second amendment is like this - it's the balance of power between a nation and its people, when access to other comparable and friendly nations is limited. By this I mean, if say Sweden were to decide to go all Totalitarian on their people, Norway, the UK, and Germany would stop them. Sweden is surrounded by friends who keep them responsible. The United States basically wasn't. It was mostly alone, apart from the Imperial powers of Europe at the time, and they were so far off that help for our people wouldn't be available for god knows how long. Now, we're the most powerful nation on Earth. We have no equal in the world. The
only balance to the power of our government is our people, and the second amendment - our friends would be powerless to help us. George Washington's wisdom on the matter suggests that we need to maintain at least the bare minimum necessary to maintain the freedom of our people from a hostile government, ours included. The question is - what's the bare minimum for that? To me, it's a semi-auto AR-15 with a detachable 30 round mag. It's not a minigun. It's not a full-auto glock with a hundred round drum. The notion of our population being armed with
rifles that are serviceable in combat would give any with a totalitarian agenda pause. This does not mean that anyone attempting to limit our guns is a totalitarian - remember the Weimar Republic first enacted firearm restrictions in Europe, not Hitler, mostly out of FEAR OF THE NAZIS. So let's try to look at this as well-meaning people making a mistake (if you can't see it that way, at least bite your tongue and talk about it that way).
As a Liberal, I'm trying to show you guys how I think it makes sense to talk to other Liberals about this. Hopefully it'll work, and hopefully you guys will spread the word.
