Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[eppie]

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amandment was made....

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with my post in regards to THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE and principle of THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED? It is very clear in that article I quoted why some weapons should be discriminated against based on their chance to cause harm to innocents.

No Meat, I am arguing that the main reason always mentioned for which people are supposed to be allowed to own guns, the 2nd amendement, is taken very seriously and literally by those people, while all the side laws (who can actually own own, what size is allowed, how many) are just discussed a bit case to case and depend on the heat of the moment.

If you think taking a few 100 year old piece of writing has all the wisdom you need to govern a 21st century country, why would you then start to make your own interpretation of it like you wish.

If 300 years ago a gun would give you some reasonable defence against your (or the british) government (what the 2nd amendment is all about), nowadays it doesn't. So if you say people should be allowed to self defend using arms you should not limit that to the same type of weapons they had 300 years ago. You should upgrade it to modern days standards.

We also don't use the same rules of driving that we used when the first cars were build. Society has changed and new rules have to be made.


And this has nothing to do with if I like guns or not. I already wrote I would probably get one if I would live in a country were it is so common and legal as it is in the US. So strawman my ***

I have changed my opinion around this topic a few years ago (actually through discussions on the lounge). I understand, respect and see the legal basis for the right to own fire arms.
My objection in this thread are two:

-first I think the arguments used by most people in this discussion are wrong (I hope I have expressed my self in an understandable way in my answer to you)
-second; a society as a whole will become more dangerous when guns are widespread. So there will be more gun related deaths among 'good people' (if I am allowed to use an overisimplified American expression)
Legal guns are safer for those who are among the top % of best shooters, but less safe for the rest of the population (among who kids).

By the way...where did I speak about nuclear warheads?? If I talk about defending yourself I obviously don't mean a nuclear warhead. From that last remark in your reaction I make up that you didn't understand what I tried to say???

So once more (hoping it is clear): If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is that allow people to wear arms in order to defend themselves form their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore.....the more weaponry evolves and becomes better, the more a citizin shouöld be allowed to own if the 2nd amendment is what is important here.
If you disagree but are in favour of owning guns (I am giving you the argument you could have used against me) you should change the 2nd amendment. You should remove the (to me useless) part about the well regulated militia, and just make it about being allowed to protect yourself against any threat (such as a gunman pointing a gun at you in your house).
If you change the 2nd amendment this way there are far less issues about the type of arms because it is clear that a gun would suffic, and not an anti-tank grenade or a bazooka.