Cuz Merica

[datzenmike]

Just like the Las Vegas shooting......

[racerx]

Yep /\ or sandy hook, etc, etc.

[Dguy210]

Just too easy to get guns. Read that in Florida its easier to get an ar15 than a handgun. Even if a background check occurred he would have pass. Combination of feeling isolated and victimized while having an ar15, oh yeh, perfect ingredients for a nut job to shoot up his old school that he felt wronged him. This debate will go on for awhile until something else pops up that intrigues the public, maybe Trumpcheeto tweeting something crazy or north Korea or the kardashians. Then this mass shooting will be in the back burner until another nut job shoots again. Murica!!!!

"Just too easy to get guns." This is the most hypocritical bullshit possible, you just want to push an anti-gun initiative on the back of a tragedy.

 

The problem is a mental health problem. No amount of gun control will ever stop people from killing other people.

 

All kinds of people were saying this guy has problems and nothing happened. What gun law would have changed that exactly?

 

Focusing on the gun will not solve the real problem here of mentally unwell people wanting to kill other people. In countries where guns are hard to legally obtain bad people get them illegally or use other methods.

 

What if he had used a truck? Or diesel and fertilizer to make a bomb? Or any of a number of other ways to kill people?

 

Want to ban "assault trucks"? High capacity fuel tanks?

 

Trying to ban or control a tool is not the right way to control a mental health problem, especially as guns are one of the few tools that in the majority of normal health adults can actually stop tragedies like this!

 

But it doesn't matter what argument or facts or statistics I put out, your "emotions" tell you GUNS are the problem.

 

Well your feelings do not trump my natural rights, those to protect myself and mine through arms.

 

You really want to stop this from happening in the future? Do NOT focus your energies on gun control, focus on the ACTUAL problem, the mentally ill or just downright "evil" people who do the actual killing.

 

I will put it as bluntly as possible. Trying to increase gun control does not prevent crazy people from killing other people. Stopping mentally ill people (intervention, whatever) is what stops mentally ill people from killing other people.

[paradime]

"18th shooting this year" yeah that turns out to be "Fake News". How surprising!

 

But I agree, the shooter was sick in the head, and the authorities had been notified and did nothing productive.

 

 

 

Gun Rights Matter... Bias maybe? 

 

Cuz this is the actual whole list. Lets not forget these are school shooting, not the same as the 346 mass shootings we saw last year.

 

1. Jan. 3, St. Johns, Mich.

The first school shooting took place just three days into the new year, at East Olive Elementary School in St. Johns, Mich.

A 31-year-old man died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the former school’s parking lot.

 

2. Jan. 4, Seattle, Wash.

A gunshot was fired at the New Start High School in Seattle, Wash. The round entered an office window and ended up lodged in a three-ring binder. No one was injured.

 

3. Jan, 10 Sierra Vista, Ariz.

A teen was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a Coronado Elementary School bathroom.

MAP: 1,619 mass shootings in the U.S. since Sandy Hook

 

4. Jan. 10, San Bernardino, Calif.

At least one shot was fired, shattering a California State University classroom window. No injuries were reported.

 

5. Jan. 10, Denison, Texas

A bullet was accidentally fired through a classroom wall at the Grayson College Criminal Justice Center. No one was injured.

6. Jan. 15, Marshall, Texas

Gunshots rang out on the Wiley College Campus in Marshall. A bullet went through a residential hall’s dorm room. No injuries were reported.

 

7. Jan. 20, Winston-Salem, N.C.

A Winston-Salem State University football player was shot and killed at an event at Wake Forest University.

 

8. Jan. 22, Italy, Texas

A teenage girl was wounded at Italy High school after a 16-year-old suspect opened fire with a semi-automatic hangun.

 

9. Jan. 22, Gentilly, La.

A shooting outside The NET Charter High School injured a 14-year-old boy.

 

10. Jan. 23, Benton, Ky.

Two people were killed and another 15 were shot at Marshall County High School.

 

11. Jan. 25, Mobile, Ala.

Murphy High School student Jonah Neal fired a gun on campus. No one was injured.

 

12. Jan. 26, Dearborn, Mich.

Shots were fired from a car in Dearborn High School's parking lot. No injuries were reported.

 

13. Jan. 31, Pa.

Gunshots erupted as a fight broke out outside of Lincoln High School. A 32-year-old man was shot twice and later pronounced dead.

 

14. Feb. 1, Los Angeles, Calif.

An accidental shooting injured five children at the Salvador B. Castro Middle School in downtown Los Angeles.

 

15. Feb. 5, Oxon Hill, Md.

A teen was shot outside of Oxon Hill High School. The victim survived.

 

16. Feb. 5, Maplewood, Minn.

A third-grader pulled the trigger on a cop's gun, firing a shot at the Harmony Learning Center. No one was injured.

 

17. Feb. 8, New York, N.Y.

A teen was taken into custody after a shot was fired inside Metropolitan High School. No one was injured.

 

18. Feb. 14, Broward County, Fla.

A former student killed 17 people atStoneman Douglas High.

[Dguy210]

Just like the Las Vegas shooting......

Still way too much fuckery surrounding that which does not make sense? Why no video of him the hotel? Why so many of the same weapon? The disappearing and reappearing security guard.

 

The narrative as-is just does not make very much sense.

 

I find the theory it may have been an arms deal or Saudi assassination gone wrong to at least seem reasonable if still out there.

[240zness]

Government agencies still don't talk to each other and connect the dots.. ??

 

Just surprised at the extent of this one .. red flags , armed guard, heros. And shooter not dead, but in custody.

[240zness]

As far as obsession with guns.. is there not value there??

 

Also obsessed with muscle cars and fast food. Along with every other human that is introduced to such freedom.

[paradime]

Fast food has killed more people in Merica than guns, but I'd disagree with the idea MacD is a Freedom, more like a plague.

[125 CSL]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article200373444.html

 

Florida school shooter arrived by Uber, escaped to Walmart after, cops say

 

An arrest report makes it clear that staffers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High immediately recognized Nikolas Cruz as a “former troubled student” as he emerged Wednesday from a small gold Uber car, carrying a black duffel bag and wearing a black hat. One staffer radioed a co-worker to alert authorities that Cruz was “walking purposefully” toward the school in Parkland.

 

Some citizen in a gold car is up shit creek.

[tr8er]

"Just too easy to get guns." This is the most hypocritical bullshit possible, you just want to push an anti-gun initiative on the back of a tragedy.

 

The problem is a mental health problem. No amount of gun control will ever stop people from killing other people.

 

All kinds of people were saying this guy has problems and nothing happened. What gun law would have changed that exactly?

 

Focusing on the gun will not solve the real problem here of mentally unwell people wanting to kill other people. In countries where guns are hard to legally obtain bad people get them illegally or use other methods.

 

What if he had used a truck? Or diesel and fertilizer to make a bomb? Or any of a number of other ways to kill people?

 

Want to ban "assault trucks"? High capacity fuel tanks?

 

Trying to ban or control a tool is not the right way to control a mental health problem, especially as guns are one of the few tools that in the majority of normal health adults can actually stop tragedies like this!

 

But it doesn't matter what argument or facts or statistics I put out, your "emotions" tell you GUNS are the problem.

 

Well your feelings do not trump my natural rights, those to protect myself and mine through arms.

 

You really want to stop this from happening in the future? Do NOT focus your energies on gun control, focus on the ACTUAL problem, the mentally ill or just downright "evil" people who do the actual killing.

 

I will put it as bluntly as possible. Trying to increase gun control does not prevent crazy people from killing other people. Stopping mentally ill people (intervention, whatever) is what stops mentally ill people from killing other people.

Over reactive. I do agree that mental health is the issue. But we are liberally allowing those with those issues access to a means of effectively turning that issue upon his fellow man. Legislation that regulates access to weaponry is not novel. Arms does not mean guns. Arms means armory, means weapons. This includes grenades, hand guns, knives, etc. all of it. We choose what, and who has access to what. Since before some condtitutuon, society has shunned certain weapons and certain people for good reason. We are far enough along to identify markers that will signal a likely risk factor warranting restrictions. The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license. But we see the benefit to restricting this privilage to those who can see. We have the right to bear arms. And I see guns as a critical element that I wish to preserve. But I also want mental illness and guns to have no relationship.

[Dguy210]

Gun Rights Matter... Bias maybe? 

 

Cuz this is the actual whole list. Lets not forget these are school shooting, not the same as the 346 mass shootings we saw last year.

 

1. Jan. 3, St. Johns, Mich.

The first school shooting took place just three days into the new year, at East Olive Elementary School in St. Johns, Mich.

A 31-year-old man died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the former school’s parking lot.

 

2. Jan. 4, Seattle, Wash.

A gunshot was fired at the New Start High School in Seattle, Wash. The round entered an office window and ended up lodged in a three-ring binder. No one was injured.

 

3. Jan, 10 Sierra Vista, Ariz.

A teen was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a Coronado Elementary School bathroom.

MAP: 1,619 mass shootings in the U.S. since Sandy Hook

 

4. Jan. 10, San Bernardino, Calif.

At least one shot was fired, shattering a California State University classroom window. No injuries were reported.

 

5. Jan. 10, Denison, Texas

A bullet was accidentally fired through a classroom wall at the Grayson College Criminal Justice Center. No one was injured.

6. Jan. 15, Marshall, Texas

Gunshots rang out on the Wiley College Campus in Marshall. A bullet went through a residential hall’s dorm room. No injuries were reported.

 

7. Jan. 20, Winston-Salem, N.C.

A Winston-Salem State University football player was shot and killed at an event at Wake Forest University.

 

8. Jan. 22, Italy, Texas

A teenage girl was wounded at Italy High school after a 16-year-old suspect opened fire with a semi-automatic hangun.

 

9. Jan. 22, Gentilly, La.

A shooting outside The NET Charter High School injured a 14-year-old boy.

 

10. Jan. 23, Benton, Ky.

Two people were killed and another 15 were shot at Marshall County High School.

 

11. Jan. 25, Mobile, Ala.

Murphy High School student Jonah Neal fired a gun on campus. No one was injured.

 

12. Jan. 26, Dearborn, Mich.

Shots were fired from a car in Dearborn High School's parking lot. No injuries were reported.

 

13. Jan. 31, Pa.

Gunshots erupted as a fight broke out outside of Lincoln High School. A 32-year-old man was shot twice and later pronounced dead.

 

14. Feb. 1, Los Angeles, Calif.

An accidental shooting injured five children at the Salvador B. Castro Middle School in downtown Los Angeles.

 

15. Feb. 5, Oxon Hill, Md.

A teen was shot outside of Oxon Hill High School. The victim survived.

 

16. Feb. 5, Maplewood, Minn.

A third-grader pulled the trigger on a cop's gun, firing a shot at the Harmony Learning Center. No one was injured.

 

17. Feb. 8, New York, N.Y.

A teen was taken into custody after a shot was fired inside Metropolitan High School. No one was injured.

 

18. Feb. 14, Broward County, Fla.

A former student killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High.

I noticed most of what you cited actually was very similar to what the image I posted stated (a couple I couldn't quite align, not sure which one was the bb gun?? for instance).

 

Moreover, do you consider a suicide that occurs at a school involving one person to really be a school shooting?

 

What about the accidental discharge?

 

Or the 3rd grader pulling the trigger on the cop's gun (how the hell does that even happen?).

 

I would argue these are very different then someone purposely going into a school and shooting at students (which did show up on the list, what 2 times I think?), which is what this list was used to imply and try and co-mingle these "statistics" with that of the Florida shooting.

 

Also statistically the population of the USA is about 320 million people. Even if we take the 346 mass shootings last year as an accurate number (how many are gang related? for instance) that is nearly a 1 in a million event per people (i.e., 1 in a million people every year commits a mass shooting).

[Dguy210]

Over reactive. I do agree that mental health is the issue. But we are liberally allowing those with those issues access to a means of effectively turning that issue upon his fellow man. Legislation that regulates access to weaponry is not novel. Arms does not mean guns. Arms means armory, means weapons. This includes grenades, hand guns, knives, etc. all of it. We choose what, and who has access to what. Since before some condtitutuon, society has shunned certain weapons and certain people for good reason. We are far enough along to identify markers that will signal a likely risk factor warranting restrictions. The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license. But we see the benefit to restricting this privilage to those who can see. We have the right to bear arms. And I see guns as a critical element that I wish to preserve. But I also want mental illness and guns to have no relationship.

"The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license." Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that?

 

"Arms does not mean guns. Arms means armory, means weapons. This includes grenades, hand guns, knives, etc. all of it." You realize you literally contradict yourself here?

 

Arms absolutely includes guns. You say so yourself. In fact if I read what you wrote in the most conservative manner, i.e., right to own a plethora of weaponry,  I suspect it would contradict the spirit of what you mean.

 

Which is a shame because I think as a private person I should be able to own weapons equivalent to the military (interestingly the Supreme Court agrees with me), in fact the Bill of Rights supports this, remember the Constitution does not give you rights it merely states your Natural Rights, your inalienable rights you know the ones that can't be taken from you. The very most basic of these is the right of self-defense and that includes from a Gov't that wishes to take these rights from you.

 

Edit: Lastly "But we are liberally allowing those with those issues access to a means of effectively turning that issue upon his fellow man." How much control is enough for you? When do you cry uncle? You feel more Gov't control is the answer? Because the FBI and everyone else fucked up here and they already have insane amounts of surveilence and power.

 

How much is enough then? How much liberty will you trade for the the perception of safety?

 

Bad people will always find a way of killing others. Example: use of trucks.

 

Why in hell would you take away the most effective way for normal people to defend themselves from crazy people? Why restrict the rights of people who are NOT committing crimes for the actions of criminals?

 

What is your line of control? And tell me when you've defined that line will it actually stop mentally ill people from killing others?

 

I agree it is a mental health issue, so tell me how gun control deals with a mental health issue?

[125 CSL]

Again, this is not a guns issue it's a crazy person issue. Fact of the matter is it's far more lucrative to be in the cleaning up the mess business than the preventing the mess business. That is what is truely CUZ, the all might dollar how many people can get their hands on.

 

There was a potential mass shooting prevented here in Washington where the kids grandmother turned him in BEFORE he could do anything, was that a national media firestorm? Nope because prevention doesn't get the ratings.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/nikolas-cruz-legally-purchased-ar-15-despite-long-history-of-mental-illness-warnings-10089980

 

Everyone knew Nikolas Cruz was deeply disturbed. He'd been in and out of mental health treatment.

 

 

rerun of Sandy, totally disturbed nut with guns he could not have bought and paid for with out parents.

[Dguy210]

I propose a challenge then:

 

Propose a law that would stop mentally ill people from killing others that does not mention (or involve) gun control.

 

Remember we've already determined mentally ill people can still kill many others using non-gun means, such as trucks and bombs. So we know a gun-control law won't stop that.

 

What law, or inter-agency action, should be taken that ACTUALLY will PREVENT this from happening again?

 

Give me a workable solution. One based on facts and not emotions.

 

Extra points for taking into consideration unintended consequences.

[paradime]

I noticed most of what you cited actually was very similar to what the image I posted stated (a couple I couldn't quite align, not sure which one was the bb gun?? for instance).

 

Moreover, do you consider a suicide that occurs at a school involving one person to really be a school shooting?

 

What about the accidental discharge?

 

Or the 3rd grader pulling the trigger on the cop's gun (how the hell does that even happen?).

 

I would argue these are very different then someone purposely going into a school and shooting at students (which did show up on the list, what 2 times I think?), which is what this list was used to imply and try and co-mingle these "statistics" with that of the Florida shooting.

 

Also statistically the population of the USA is about 320 million people. Even if we take the 346 mass shootings last year as an accurate number (how many are gang related? for instance) that is nearly a 1 in a million event per people (i.e., 1 in a million people every year commits a mass shooting).

 

First off let me clarify, I own guns and I'm not looking to take yours away. I just want to have a reasonable logical conversation about solutions rather than hiding behind the stale polarized rhetoric that's got us here.

 

I totally agree the term school shooting is misleading and should be changed to incidents involving fire arms at schools, but I wanted to illustrate bias by excluding data that didn't support Gun Rights Matter's obvious agenda. The position of minimizing the US's disproportionate gun violence compared with other 1st world countries by scaling in millions is disingenuous and you know it. 

 

Thinking an AR-15 evens the feild against the fire power of the US military is delusional IMPO. 

[Dguy210]

First off let me clarify, I own guns and I'm not looking to take yours away. I just want to have a reasonable logical conversation about solutions rather than hiding behind the stale polarized rhetoric that's got us here.

 

I totally agree the term school shooting is misleading and should be changed to incidents involving fire arms at schools, but I wanted to illustrate bias by excluding data that didn't support Gun Rights Matter's obvious agenda. The position of minimizing the US's disproportionate gun violence compared with other 1st world countries by scaling in millions is disingenuous and you know it. 

 

Thinking an AR-15 evens the feild against the fire power of the US military is delusional IMPO.

" Thinking an AR-15 evens the feild against the fire power of the US military is delusional IMPO."

 

Yeah, we all know that it has to be an AK-47 given the outcomes we've seen in the M.E. 

 

You can't just glass the citizens if you want to rule you need boots on the ground and the citizens will always out number the authorities.

 

 

Well yeah the gun site is biased, just like the site that lists the shooting stats in the first place, or the news that picks those stats to report it.

 

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics." M. Twain

 

Of course it is rhetoric and based on sketchy reasoning but you will note I did NOT compare anything to any other 1st world country. Only within in the USA. Some big ass assumptions I make on distribution and population density of course.

[tr8er]

"The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license." Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that?

 

----Fifth Amendment. Yup, there's more than two------

 

"Arms does not mean guns. Arms means armory, means weapons. This includes grenades, hand guns, knives, etc. all of it." You realize you literally contradict yourself here?

 

--------Arms includes guns, but not strictly guns. This was extremely clear to kindergarten readers of my text-------

 

Arms absolutely includes guns. You say so yourself. In fact if I read what you wrote in the most conservative manner, i.e., right to own a plethora of weaponry, I suspect it would contradict the spirit of what you mean.

 

------sprit is, there is a line to draw. You are stuck-----

 

Which is a shame because I think as a private person I should be able to own weapons equivalent to the military (interestingly the Supreme Court agrees with me), in fact the Bill of Rights supports this, remember the Constitution does not give you rights it merely states your Natural Rights, your inalienable rights you know the ones that can't be taken from you. The very most basic of these is the right of self-defense and that includes from a Gov't that wishes to take these rights from you.

 

-------does the Supreme Court really agree that you can own a nuclear warhead? Cuz the military does------

 

Edit: Lastly "But we are liberally allowing those with those issues access to a means of effectively turning that issue upon his fellow man." How much control is enough for you? When do you cry uncle? You feel more Gov't control is the answer? Because the FBI and everyone else fucked up here and they already have insane amounts of surveilence and power.

 

How much is enough then? How much liberty will you trade for the the perception of safety?

 

 

-------I draw the line at the use of pharmaceuticals proven to cause or amplify homicidal tendencies and dissociative behaviors. No one is forced to take these drugs, so the gun restriction would be elective. But if you want a drug that might make you less crazy or might make you a killer, give up your guns. That's my line. And I'll fight for our right to own guns. I own guns and don't wish for that right to be revoked--------

 

Bad people will always find a way of killing others. Example: use of trucks.

 

------I agree. Hopefully without guns, they will choose weapons like trucks, or knives. And hopefully not bombs------

 

Why in hell would you take away the most effective way for normal people to defend themselves from crazy people? Why restrict the rights of people who are NOT committing crimes for the actions of criminals?

 

------agreed, did you read what I wrote, or just assumed I was Oprah?-------

 

What is your line of control? And tell me when you've defined that line will it actually stop mentally ill people from killing others?

 

 

------I hope, yes. But at very least it will reduce the spontinaity and effectiveness of their efforts-------

 

I agree it is a mental health issue, so tell me how gun control deals with a mental health issue?

 

------id feel better in a prison of rapists who's dicks were chopped off, than rapist prison in Kenya.-----

-----See above---- you have my words mixed, as I've come to expect.

[Dguy210]

-----See above---- you have my words mixed, as I've come to expect.

 

Not sure how the 5th Amendment applies:

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

So again where exactly in the Constitution does it say that? "The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license." 

 

Also:

United States v. Miller 1958

 

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

So yes the Supreme Court did rule that ordinary military equipment is allowed for Citizens.

[tr8er]

I propose a challenge then:

 

Propose a law that would stop mentally ill people from killing others that does not mention (or involve) gun control.

 

Remember we've already determined mentally ill people can still kill many others using non-gun means, such as trucks and bombs. So we know a gun-control law won't stop that.

 

What law, or inter-agency action, should be taken that ACTUALLY will PREVENT this from happening again?

 

Give me a workable solution. One based on facts and not emotions.

 

Extra points for taking into consideration unintended consequences.

Really great mental health services not scraping by in donations and desperate grants. Government funded mental health care focused in urban communities with motivated outreach and inpatient facilities that are staffed and effective. There's a law that could help, and you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that extra $20 on your annual taxes.

[bananahamuck]

Ollie North was here

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Dguy210]

Really great mental health services not scraping by in donations and desperate grants. Government funded mental health care focused in urban communities with motivated outreach and inpatient facilities that are staffed and effective. There's a law that could help, and you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that extra $20 on your annual taxes.

 

I would actually agree with improved mental health services. Not sure I would want the Federal Gov't to run them though as they seem to seriously fuck the pooch on stuff they run: See VA. 

 

"There's a law that could help, and you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that extra $20 on your annual taxes."

 

Actually as a specific line item or donation I would be ok with that, I'm not a big fan of increasing taxes to fund Gov't projects as I think that breeds inefficiency and waste. I do however support putting my money towards projects that have good societal impacts. In no way would I believe it would only be $20 extra on my taxes, though.

 

A separate accredited private institute with transparent funding and accountability that was directly funded by a very narrow mandate might be a reasonable way of accomplishing this task.

[tr8er]

Not sure how the 5th Amendment applies:

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So again where exactly in the Constitution does it say that? "The constitution gives every citizen a legal avenue to drive without license."

Also: United States v. Miller 1958

 

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

So yes the Supreme Court did rule that ordinary military equipment is allowed for Citizens.

"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]"

 

I'm not one of the nuts who takes this as absolute. Similarly, I'm not taking the 2nd as absolute. As I do not wish for my fellow man to own nuclear warheads. We need to have reason in government.

[Dguy210]

"Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]"

 

I'm not one of the nuts who takes this as absolute. Similarly, I'm not taking the 2nd as absolute. As I do not wish for my fellow man to own nuclear warheads. We need to have reason in government.

 

 

Freedom of Movement does not equate to a right to drive. It means you have a  "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." Take the damn bus if you can't get a license. Traveling is a right, driving is a privilege, they are not the same. 

 

While I realize it borders on reducto ad absurdim why can't I own a nuclear warhead if I could 1. afford it, 2. wasn't mentally ill? 

 

You are making the assumption that owning a weapon implies using it against people. If I am not doing anything evil with it or allowing it to fall in the hands of evil people why can't I have it? See: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/g2252/uses-for-peacetime-nukes/

 

Although, I would argue that nuclear weapons start falling into the "interfering with other's rights" due to fallout etc...

 

So that would be a valid reason to limit them to state actors. But it is a ridiculously extreme example anyways. 

 

It should be noted that in states that don't restrict it, and allowing the huge expense, and the mountain of paperwork, and NFA taxes, you can own many if not most available for sale military weapons, including destructive devices (i.e., grenades), grenade launchers, automatic weapons, tanks, etc... 

 

Literally in Oregon I can buy a grenade launcher and grenades if I so desired to attach to my M-16 while riding around in a tank. I would just need a lot of money and about a year of waiting on the tax stamps.

[tr8er]

That's my point. Ridiculous extremes. Restricting driving under fifth. Nukes under second. We draw lines reasonably. And some refuse to accept reason.

[tr8er]

I'm devolving into argumentative. I'm done. I support gun rights and regulation. Fear of overreach is not unwarranted. We must stand our ground, and not get stubborn in our thoughts.