- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
There are almost no firearms that are reasonable to limit. Explosives, bombs, artilery are different(and aren't firearms). The thing is all firearms do one thing, fire a basic projectile and where things change is the delivery mechanism and rate of fire. Muzzle loaders, semi/fully automatic, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all use the ignition of powder to launch either a ball bearing, bullet, or slug.That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.
Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
This being said you cannot declare one dangerous over another because of this due to ownership, same thing with speech, words themselves aren't banned but certain context/usage is, IOW "yelling fire" is legal when there is a fire, it's actually legal when there isn't a large crowd to panic, it is not legal when it can cause a large panic. You cannot say "let's hang all the (insert hated group here)" with the intention to start a riot or violent act but you may say it in a context such as a bad joke, or a passing thought, the call to action is the limit. Same thing with firearms, if I have an M249 LMG hanging around unloaded(or loaded) in my gun cabinet and secure it won't hurt anyone, the ownership doesn't equal criminal action/intent, if I fire it in my own cities borders though that is a different story it is obviously malicious because the amount of rounds and that large of a powder load guarantees collateral damage.