Do you FULLY support the 2nd amendment?

[jeremy]

Heck, I'd even get the DEAD people in the county to vote for him.

I thought only NWI was allowed to do that?!

 

[cqcn88]

Well, there you have it. There's a new Sheriff in town. Name's Jack Ryan.
Now y'all mind yer manners and behave real peaceable-like, and we'll have no trouble.

haha...Bring back the good ol fashioned gallows and he has my vote

 

[Jack Ryan]

haha...Bring back the good ol fashioned gallows and he has my vote

That's a waste of good timber when bullets are no more than a buck a piece.

Use the wood to make paddles and form gauntlets for the one's not quite ready for shooting yet.

 

[HICKMAN]

Responding to the original post, I don't think the Founding Fathers ever considered that fathers in this country would stop teaching firearms to their sons and daughters.

Sadly, it's a skill more often not taught.

 

[stormryder]

100% all other problems will clear up on their own in time.

 

[cqcn88]

That's a waste of good timber when bullets are no more than a buck a piece.

Use the wood to make paddles and form gauntlets for the one's not quite ready for shooting yet.

Bullets are used once, gallows have repeated use. Probably pay itself over the years

 

[Woodrow]

What about nuclear weapons?

Hard to say. I don't know that nukes fall under "firearms." The impracticality of possession would preclude almost everyone from ownership. Also, firearms are to protect us from tyranny--not too many tyrants would blow-up their own people (otherwise, they would have no subjects). If my neighbor has a machine gun, there is little danger of wiping out the city defending himself and his property. A nuclear weapon would decimate the surrounding area, and I don't think he (or really anyone) should or does have that right.

Nuclear technology requires a modicum of technological understanding to even implement. Ted and Alice down the street are nice people, and reasonably intelligent, but I don't think they are nuclear scientists/ engineers, and even if they are, I don't know that the ability gives them any right to hold the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in their control.

I don't think that nuclear arms fall under the firearms question even playing Devil's Advocate because there is no Individual application of rights.

A nuclear powered ray gun might be different...

 

[jeremy]

You know it was not that long ago in Indiana when you could go into a hardware store and purchase explosives. Did we have anyone blowing up stuff in terroristic fashion... Nope...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I FULLY support the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I do believe that the issue of minors is a bit more difficult. I DO think that minors should have the ability to keep and bear arms. I AM against all government mandated training for the use of firearms. However, it can't be denied that EVERYONE needs instruction at one time or another. Do we simply hand over an AR-15 to a 13 year-old child without some proper training? If training is needed, should the .gov hold the parents responsible? Then we are right back in the circle of "do we want the .gov to mandate training? No. Is training needed? Yes. Do we impose a penalty if the parent doesn't train the child? Possibly. Is that a form of government mandated training? Possibly." Any opinions out there? I'm against government-mandated training. I feel minors should be trained by parents in the use of firearms. I just don't see how telling a parent that they need to train their child is NOT a form of government-mandated training.

The answer to your problem is that parents are totally responsible for what their minor children do. If they allow their child to have a weapon without properly training it in firearms safety and use, the parents are responsible for any damage/death caused by their child. Government need not have anything to do with it, except where such a case comes before a court.

 

[jeremy]

Personally I think there should be ZERO regulations on anything. The free market will take care of the trash soon enough.

Nukes, if someone wants to build a small nuke to blow a stump out of the ground oh well...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Hard to say. I don't know that nukes fall under "firearms." The impracticality of possession would preclude almost everyone from ownership. Also, firearms are to protect us from tyranny--not too many tyrants would blow-up their own people (otherwise, they would have no subjects). If my neighbor has a machine gun, there is little danger of wiping out the city defending himself and his property. A nuclear weapon would decimate the surrounding area, and I don't think he (or really anyone) should or does have that right.

Nuclear technology requires a modicum of technological understanding to even implement. Ted and Alice down the street are nice people, and reasonably intelligent, but I don't think they are nuclear scientists/ engineers, and even if they are, I don't know that the ability gives them any right to hold the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in their control.

I don't think that nuclear arms fall under the firearms question even playing Devil's Advocate because there is no Individual application of rights.

A nuclear powered ray gun might be different...

Cionstitution says the right to keep and bear arms; doesn't say firearms only. Private nukes might be uncommon, but they would be considered "arms" under the Constitution.

 

[Woodrow]

Nukes, if someone wants to build a small nuke to blow a stump out of the ground oh well...

What is a "small nuke?" I'm no physicist, but I don't know of many things smaller than an atom and when you split one, you get a 12 mile blast radius.

If I am wrong, please, someone educate me.

As to comparing nuclear matter to hardware store explosives...there is a bit of a difference in the peripheral (collateral) damage.

I do remember when I was a kid and we would build nukes in the backyard, but those were simpler times...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What is a "small nuke?" I'm no physicist, but I don't know of many things smaller than an atom and when you split one, you get a 12 mile blast radius.

If I am wrong, please, someone educate me.

As to comparing nuclear matter to hardware store explosives...there is a bit of a difference in the peripheral (collateral) damage.

I do remember when I was a kid and we would build nukes in the backyard, but those were simpler times...

I think you're thinking of H-bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons have smaller areas of effect. Civilian nukes could be used for heavy engineering and excavations; depending upon the composition, radio isotopes could be short-lived and be environmentally neutralized in a relatively short time period.

 

[Woodrow]

I think you're thinking of H-bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons have smaller areas of effect. Civilian nukes could be used for heavy engineering and excavations; depending upon the composition, radio isotopes could be short-lived and be environmentally neutralized in a relatively short time period.

Rep on the info, thanks.

I stand corrected. Still though, would "civilian-use" nukes fall under the Second?

 

[bigus_D]

I can't believe the conversation has seriously turned to "civial-use nuclear bombs" and people actually think this is a good idea.

 

[jeremy]

I think you're thinking of H-bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons have smaller areas of effect. Civilian nukes could be used for heavy engineering and excavations; depending upon the composition, radio isotopes could be short-lived and be environmentally neutralized in a relatively short time period.

Thank you! You beat me back to this thread...

Rep on the info, thanks.

I stand corrected. Still though, would "civilian-use" nukes fall under the Second?

No probably not but I am sure the BATF&E would have to regulate it and charge you extra for being able to use it...

I can't believe the conversation has seriously turned to "civial-use nuclear bombs" and people actually think this is a good idea.

Why Not?!
There are a lot of good places they could be utilized in. I can think of several applications in the fields of engineering, demolitions, and mining were they would be quite useful...

 

[bigus_D]

Why Not?!
There are a lot of good places they could be utilized in.

I doubt it...

 

[xring62]

NowNow we should be talking guns not grenades. Yes to the 2nd ! we will never allow that to be changed. Hear that liberals? !

 

[jeremy]

I doubt it...

I don't, I can see several uses for them in Civilian applications. I could also see the technology moving farther, and faster with Civilian use allowed too. Will we ever see it?! Probably not in our lifetimes. Definitely not in our childrens lifetimes with the speed that we are approaching a Nanny State...

 

[Woodrow]

NowNow we should be talking guns not grenades. Yes to the 2nd ! we will never allow that to be changed. Hear that liberals? !

The nukes question is peripheral and obviously not something about which I understand a great deal. Grenades however could definitely be useful should we ever have to fortify ourselves against forces from within that will have grenades. Keep in mind why the Second was included.