Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Jedidiah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_..._Tank_Rampage)

One event with a stolen tank hardly conflicts with the fact that there has not been a "bunch of incidents" with legal tanks.

[Jedidiah]

Sparko said "a bunch of incidents" not "any incidents."

Not to mention that like many (or most) gun incidents this was not a legal tank, it was stolen.

[Sparko]

I said
How is that changed by the fact that someone else says something different.

It also does not change the fact that the Constitution is not a living document to be reinterpreted as seen fit by activist judges.

How does the fact that Scalia did not entirely agree with my position alter my position in any way?

That reminds me. In support of your claim, and because Teal denied that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right:

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state"

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

also see:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ight-protected
https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lf-defens.html

[One Bad Pig]

Not to mention that like many (or most) gun incidents this was not a legal tank, it was stolen.

It's pretty hard for one guy to drive a tank and use its weapons, stolen or not. That takes teamwork - and you're not likely to make any sneak attacks with one.

[Mountain Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_..._Tank_Rampage)

First of all, that wasn't a privately owned tank. Secondly, he had to break several laws before he even started his rampage, so he was a criminal before he even climbed into the tank.

[Roy]

ok you found 1 incident how does that contradict Sparko saying a bunch of people.

It doesn't. I didn't say it did.

[Cerebrum123]

It doesn't. I didn't say it did.

Your post certainly implied that you were trying to say that.

[JimL]

Actually I did answer him. Go back and read.

And actually his objection that a bunch of hicks with guns could not stand against an army just means that we should have access to machine guns and bazookas in order to have a well regulated militia.

Actually no, you didn't answer the question he asked you which was "do you think that machine guns and bazookas should be legal? Your answer was, "I think they are legal." Now you've answered it in response to me. So you believe that the people should have the right to own and bear any kind of weapon that exists?

[JimL]

Yeah, I was actually thinking of that ONE incident when I worded my sentence. There might even be others, but just because such things make the news does not make them common. The reason they ARE news is because they are uncommon. Also, he did not legally own the tank, he stole it, and he never used the gun or any weapons.

Kinda ironic we nitpicked the tweb nitpicker though.

It'd most assuredly be much more common if many people actually owned tanks or jet fighters.

[One Bad Pig]

It'd most assuredly be much more common if many people actually owned tanks or jet fighters.

There aren't many people who could afford either - and those who could afford to purchase one would have a difficult time getting essentials such as spare parts and ammunition.

[Mountain Man]

It'd most assuredly be much more common if many people actually owned tanks or jet fighters.

Jimmy can beg the question with the best of them.

[JimL]

There aren't many people who could afford either - and those who could afford to purchase one would have a difficult time getting essentials such as spare parts and ammunition.

Not the point!

[Sparko]

Actually no, you didn't answer the question he asked you which was "do you think that machine guns and bazookas should be legal? Your answer was, "I think they are legal." Now you've answered it in response to me. So you believe that the people should have the right to own and bear any kind of weapon that exists?

Actually I DID, you just don't bother to read.

No you asked if we have a right to them. Not what I thought. But I think we do.

[Sparko]

It'd most assuredly be much more common if many people actually owned tanks or jet fighters.

The original point was that they are legal to own, and they are.

And whether they would be misused if many people had them is speculation. The fact is those that are owned now are not misused, and if someone wanted to misuse them, they can get them.

[One Bad Pig]

Not the point!

If your scenario is incredibly unlikely to occur, the point is immaterial.