I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

No one is coming to confiscate anyone's guns.

 

Is that what you mean by "reasonable gun law?" Tell me, what will banning those two rifles accomplish?

 

As usual, you missed the point. But since you brought it up, Nancy Pelosi would take my guns tomorrow if she could.

 

Tell that to senator Diane "just turn them all in" Feinstein

 

Self defense from whom, what? Any weapon can be used for self defense.
But are you saying, only self defense is the constitutional reason for weapons ownership?
So all the hunters could have their weapons taken if they state it is for hunting and not self defense?

 

I am not being evasive. I have answered it. I don't care, 1 way or the other.

 

I've never heard anyone say they want to keep an AR15 because it "looks scary".

The AR15 is modular. That is it's appeal. Not how it "looks scary".

 

Certainly if the citizen is rich enough or if a bunch of citizens get together and contribute money to afford one or more.
Tanks certainly are used as self defense. All weapons can be used as self defense. But my question is, does the constitution prohibit a citizen from owning them. You seem to be saying yes, can you show me where?
Where does the constitution limit weapons ownership to what civilian police officers use? I think you are making that part up. Or interpreting meanings to fit your narrative.

 

Self defense from harm, obviously.

No, I'm saying, as clearly indicated by the founding fathers thoughts on the subject, and the information you willfully ignore, that the right to bear arms is based on self defense. That defense can be at the micro level or the macro level.

Clearly the right to defense at the macro level exists since every nation on earth has weapons to defend itself. Clearly the right to defense exists at the micro level because every living creature will defend itself if attacked.

Firearms are the best means of self defense since it enables the elderly, the infirm, and the physically weak to resist the attacks of the stronger, or the more numerous.

Since hunters have the individual right to bear arms, how they choose to legally bear arms is irrelevant.

 

Hmm, so in Ca, everyone had to turn their guns in? Or she came an took them?
I didn't say some would like to do that, I said no one has done that or is in the process of doing that. Nor will they. Talk is just that.

 

What was your very first firearm?

 

You have me confused with someone against gun ownership. I don't participate in gun thread, 1st one actually, because of the idiocy of both sides.
I am merely asking where you draw a line in the sand. Because that is what you're doing. And everyone has their own line drawn.

So you say the commerce clause prohibits tank and fighter jet ownership. Yet others have stated, citizens do have ownership of such weapons. So which is it? Per the constitution.

 

No, it's not "up to the interpreter". Human beings continually seek to impose their will on other human beings, which is why we have the Constitution in the first place.

Murder isn't "up to interpretation", but we still have plenty of people who ignore that too.

 

She took the first steps with the Brady bill. She desired to go further. As did her colleagues. Concerted efforts from people who aren't begging for civil war were the only thing that prevented and still prevent people like her from doing that.
Fool yourself all you'd like. It's a free country still, no thanks to people like her.

 

There have also been numerous cases of unlawful, individual gun confiscations that have happened in California against persons.

Then there was also the SKS ban of a previously legal weapon, the following requirement for registration, then after the registration they started confiscating them.

You couldn't sell them. Turn them in or be a felon.

 

Exactly.

Just because they haven't been successful doesn't mean they aren't trying to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

Clearly, they are.

 

Claymore mines, land mines all placed around the perimeter of ones residence is also a good means of self defense. And an early warning signal as well.

I am not arguing against ownership. I am merely curious to what the constitution says can be used as a weapon.
From what I can gather, tanks, jets, bombs, etc, are legit per the constitution.

 

Murder is up to interpretation. It is why there are several classes of murder.

 

They are. Add the Marque and Reprisal clause to complete your understanding. They authorize attacks on certain shipping, of a particular foreigner or of a particular flag respectively by permission of Congress. Not permission to carry cannon or a ship capable of being a warship, but permission to USE them in a particular way. The implication being you've already got them and had a right to them.
Read some old libel cases (admiralty cases are called libels. So not written slander ) all the ships have arms already, even those without letters or a reprisal. Why is that, do you think?
Wrote my law school research paper on that subject, actually. I graduate Friday. You can call me Dr Reality then. After the bar you can call me Dr Reality, ESQ.

 

No, murder is murder.

The classification is on intent and only relevant to sentencing guidelines.

It's still clearly illegal to murder, which is not up to interpretation.

 

Mines are indiscriminate.

Booby traps are illegal for that reason.

 

These aren't personal arms. The original framers probably had personal arms in mind.

 

There is no requirement to register a car, as long as you don't want to drive on public roads. A registration list is a list that the government can use to confiscate firearms. California already used registration lists to confiscate. It's inevitable, and is why gun owners are totally against it.

 

No, I will choose not to visit the residence.

 

Evidence for that contention. FBI stats are preferred.