Rocket launchers and full auto rifles could quite easily fit under the two definitions you gave.
Thats not in any way true at all. The genie was out of the bottle in Australia and the UK as well. Where did their genie go? Where did the genie go in mexico where gun control is now very strict when it used to be more open? Your genie will take her guns and get the fuck out of here right after the next diptard goes on another shooting rampage.
The 2nd amendment won't survive intact after another Newtown or Aurora. You can bet on that. The NRA can only do so much before the pressure from the public steamrolls right over them and rips the 2nd right out of their hands.
The Daily Show did a nice segment on how after Australia banned guns, they went from having a serious mass shooting (4+) every year to having NO MASS SHOOTINGS.
One might extrapolate this thinking to my being entitled to own my own nuclear weapons. Yippie! Ain't Freedom grand?Rocket launchers propel an exploding projectile meant to harm hardened targets or groups of men, and are therefore ordnance or artillery, neither of which are covered under 'arms'.
You are correct that we should have protected rights to full auto weapons, so long as military has access to them. The bans on modern automatic weapons ARE unconstitutional, though would likely be allowed to stand under false pretenses.
Kennesaw, Georgia is a city of 35,000 just north of Atlanta. It's a legal mandate there that every able household own a gun and ammunition for it. They have zero mass shootings, and since institution of said law back in the mid 80s their crime rate has plummeted.
One might extrapolate this thinking to my being entitled to own my own nuclear weapons. Yippie! Ain't Freedom grand?
That might work in Kennesaw, but it won't work in the U.S. in general, where our citizenry have shown themselves to be far from mature enough to handle the responsibility that firearms ownership demands.
Here is the problem many people don't seem to understand
Freedom state = reactionary judicial system
Freedom as a basis works well on the principle that people are good and inherently out to do the right thing. That criminal, psychopaths, and what not are aberrations. To have a government based upon individual freedoms of the people, that means you have to have a judicial system and law system in place that is reactionary in basis.
The Daily Show did a nice segment on how after Australia banned guns, they went from having a serious mass shooting (4+) every year to having NO MASS SHOOTINGS.
Except that criminal psychopaths are precisely the kind of person that can get into and make a career in the government.
And taking a cursory look at history ought to indicate that has been the case and will continue to be the case, no matter what ideology they espouse.
Government is not the answer to violence. It is one of the (primary) causes of violence.
Except, that psychopaths can do that with any form of government.
Horrible analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
Australia has always had low levels of major and violent crime. It was even on the decline. But several over sensationalized media outbursts of a few violent crimes involving guns all of a sudden threw the populace and government into a panic. The government ramrodded huge gun control legislation in during 1996. They was also done with a forced buyback/confiscation program. As an island nation, they were able to go door to door and take everything that was a gun or even potentially make them without a permit.
It was a massive cost to do that undertaking. To do the equivalent in the USA would be astronomical in cost. Not only that, Australia being an island nation, can effectively seal off and control borders to prevent guns from entering the country. Although I'm pretty sure there might be a few smuggling operations even now.
Funny thing was, suicide rates did not drop in Australia. Also crime rates of all types NOT involving firearms climbed and have done so to levels unheard of in CENTURIES in the country. It's not a third world level nation of crime rate, but it's pretty high. Most of which the government tried to cover up. Still does.
Do you really want to use Australia or any other nation as a measuring stick that has tried to ban guns? None of them have done so and had a resulting lower levels of suicide or violent crimes.
I scanned the article and I don't see a reference to crime rates in Australia.
I don't care about the suicide rate, because it is self-inflicted. Violent crime I do care about, and while it doesn't appear to have dropped, it also hasn't dramatically increased.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
The point really is more that as a result of draining of firearms from society, the criminals aren't circumventing the law on a significant scale. Deaths by firearm went down. Illegal guns haven't come close to filling the gap.
Deaths by firearms went down. Suicide rates by firearms went down.
Deaths from crime went up. Suicide rates remained the same.
Point being, the firearm is NOT the problem with the society that has these statistics. Removing firearms solves NOTHING. In fact it creates more problems. Crime typically spikes, unless a society takes further corrective actions, and the cost to remove firearms from the populace is tremendous. That cost alone causes even further problems.
It might not be the solution. I personally wouldn't want something that went as far as Australia. I simply want a magazine size limit in place + universal background check.
But I'm also saying that the whole thing about gun laws only affecting law-abiding citizens and not affecting criminals is false. When they cracked down on guns, gun violence went down. The black market did not fill the gap.
Actually, you did not follow the Australian problem huh? Homicide rates have steadily increased in Australia since the forced government program of gun confiscation from 2001 according to the Australian Institute of Criminology
It's not a huge increase, but a steady one. Along with other crimes. However, Australia is not like the USA. They never had a right to own guns. As a country they had far less guns and always had major restrictions upon ownership. They spent a ridiculous amount of money, and still do, effecting their "gun ban" on their citizens. To which the net effect is less homicides by guns, but more criminal homicides as well as higher crime rate over all.
Sure there is less "gun crime" because there are less guns. But there is more "knife crime" because that is what the criminals can get their hands on.
But the law is effective at taking guns out of people's hands. The black market is not magically filling the gap. That's my first point.
And also, we haven't seen psychopaths kill multitudes of people in Australia using a bomb or something, contrary to the common refrain that restricting weapons is useless because the crazy guy might just use a bomb.
Bombs are kind of hard to make, while guns are ready-made. You also have to find a way to test the bomb. That's my second point. They had a decrease in mass shootings. James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, or this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Minneapolis_workplace_shooting
etc would not have happened in Australia because those guys would not be able to obtain a weapon.
I'll have to look more into crime rates in Australia. I wonder what are the laws are on non-lethal defense in the country. I actually came to the conclusion not long ago that practically, a can of pepper spray makes more sense for most people than a gun in defense on the street. Home defense I do think a gun is needed, as well as for small businessmen.
The Boston bombs were relatively simple. Bombs are kind of hard to make work. Columbine was supposed to be a bombing, but it failed. If the bomb had succeeded, that is 600 people dead. Faisal Shazhad failed in his bomb also.
It also appears that it was a politically motivated attack.
Which is different. IMO, a lot of these mass shooters want to see other people die right in front of them. It's not like a algebraic exercise to maximize body count. They're doing it for the experience.
Plop Loughner, Cho, Holmes, and Lanza into Australia. Do they still carry out their mass shootings? Do they manage to build bombs? or do they muddle along like everyday losers?
anyone who can buy fertilizer can build a crude bomb very easily. it's nothing terribly special.
what if someone were to pump chlorine gas into the HVAC system of a building? after all, you just need bleach and ammonia.
So why doesn't it happen?
A combination of:
1. A gun being easier.
2. A gun being more emotionally satisfying for the psychotic cases out there.
Other things like that HAS happened. Don't you get it? The difference is it is not sensationalized like gun are by the media. Also some of them are from other countries or older instances. You know how many people are purposefully killed by intentional arson? Just because it's not national headlines doesn't mean it doesn't happen.