Gun owners: It's time for us to stand up against the Second Amendment death culture

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Chemical weapons are not arms. As to the rest, I refer you to 4 Blackstone's Commentarys 148 ("THE offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unu∫ual weapons, is a crime again∫t the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited")(language as in original). PS, it has already been held that rifles and pistols which are in common use, such as AR-15s and AK-47s, are not "dangerous or unusual", and thus do not fall under that prohibition. I would argue that "heavy machine guns, cannons, anti-tank weapons, or surface-to-air missiles" would probably fall under that prohibition.

Capt Gregory Prickett - What do you mean "chemical weapons" are not "arms"? Would the statement need to be more specific to the delivery system... like mortars or rockets? If chemical weapons are not arms, why do they fall under to auspices of "arms control agreements"?

It has been held that AR-15s and AK-47s are not "dangerous"? Not to the person firing them maybe... but the same might be said for any weapon. Sort of sets a catch 22, doesn't it... The AR-15 may be in "common use" because they are not prohibited. If there were less prohibitions on medium and heavy machine guns, they would be more in "common use". Is this standard why nunchaku are considered illegal in may places where a person can open carry a .45? And I was not aware the AK-47 was in "common use" by your average citizen... well, U.S. citizen anyway.

I guess Blackstone had a different interpretation of "shall not be infringed" and prioritized "the public peace" over a person's right to have whatever weapon they wanted. We certainly wouldn't want "the good people of the land" to be terrified... and I suppose having grade school children carry out Active Shooter drills will not terrify them too much.

Thanks for the perspective. Still, it reinforces my statement that all rights have limits, though apparently we are constrained to any legal standard set over 200 years ago. Makes sense.?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Chemical weapons are not "arms", and are prohibited under international law as being weapons of mass destruction, not arms.

The test isn't "dangerous", it is "dangerous and unusual". A weapon that is in common use throughout the United States can't meet the second prong of the test, because it is not "unusual". Both the AR-15 series of rifles, and the semi-auto version of the AK-series of rifles meet the common use standard. As for the AK? American civilians, in 2020, bought the same number of AKs as the Russian military did, and there is an estimated 10 million AKs in circulation in the US (and 14.4 million ARs). I'm not going to address your nunchuck strawman.

Sir William Blackstone didn't have an interpretation of "shall not be infringed" as he died in 1780, eleven years before the Bill of Rights were ratified, but his Commentaries were extensively used in the US for decades.

Capt Gregory Prickett - How can they be considered "weapons" and not "arms"? It would appear a lot of selective thinking and parsing is in play. What is the standard for "unusual"? "Unusual" is a relative standard. And my nanchuck statement was not a strawman or an attempt to be flippant. It was a legitimate question as to why it is okay to carry a sidearm but not a couple of sticks connected by rope, or a gravity knife or butterfly knife. What about a large meat cleaver? Would that be considered "unusual"? What about a functional sword? A battle axe? You have to admit there is some twisting of logic going on to make certain things we want to be okay fit in one category while pigeonholing other things into a different category. There is not a lot of factual work going on here. It pretty much boils down to opinion.

Died in 1780 and yet we are constrained by his writings... almost like people who like to cite the Bible for justification for their actions and ways of thinking. But there again, it is all about interpretation. Blackstone didn't say dangerous AND unusual, he said dangerous OR unusual, leading me to believe from common logic that something only need to meet one of those standards.... which, I suppose would apply to nunchaku. If a rifle and pistol are not considered dangerous, not sure how you can classify nunchaku as dangerous... but unusual??? Depends on the person I suppose.

And believe me, I understand why people don't want to give up their property because of the actions of other people, for the benefit of other people so they can "feel" safe. If there are better options to try and manage the problem... and we do have a problem, I am all for it. I don't want anyone to have to give up anything, but required national registration, licensing, insurance, etc. By and large though, people are far too emotionally trenched in their positions to make much headway, so I guess we just continue to hear about mass shooting on the news... if we are lucky. Someday we may learn about it first hand.

MSgt Steve Sweeney Who said I don't care about prosecuting white collar crime?

You do a whole hell of a lot of putting words in my mouth. Almost like you need me to say what you want me to say so you can win the argument. That's called a straw man and is a big no no.

I said white collar crime is not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is gun violence.

"Although traffic and pedestrian stops are deemed the least likely to get guns, they account for the majority of gun seizures because of the sheer volume of these stops — literally thousands per year. "

Source: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-recovery-strategies


Yes, the proportion is low - but still the most significant.

I also never said that broken taillights feed into gun crime. I said that stolen guns or drugs found at a stop for broken taillights feed into gun crime. And that letting these criminals off the hook for their stolen guns and drugs just because they were found at a traffic stop is a serious problem.

SFC Casey O'Mally - And what makes mere possession of a gun during a traffic stop illegal exactly? How would you know the gun is stolen if it is not registered? Are they able to look up those guns in some sort of database? But if they don't have any registration records... and you said previously that they don't need a database ... so how would that work exactly?

Oh yes.. and drugs. You certainly wouldn't want a grown adult in a free country to put whatever they want in their own bodies. Better to let the government tell you what substances you can and cannot take.

But sure, as long it is only poor people we are keeping under the thumb. How many rich people do you know have to deal with "consent searches"? Maybe you are under the impression the rich don't use drugs.

MSgt Steve Sweeney I'm done with you putting words in my mouth. Have a good day.

SFC Casey O'Mally - I was pretty sure that would shut you up.