Originally posted by -dead-
miko2D
Why are guns so easy to obtain illegally?
Are guns much easier to make or smuggle than nerve gas?
Why is it more difficult to obtain (legally or illegally) hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?
Where in the second amendment does it state that Americans have the right to keep and bear reasonable weapons?
Isn't it unconstitutional to ban the sale and ownership of hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?
I will address those questions one by one.
Why are guns so easy to obtain illegally? Guns can be smuggled through the border whole or in pieces much easier then bulky drugs. Unlike drugs, metal/plastic guns cannot be sniffed by dogs or chemical analyzers. Guns are very low-tech devices that are easy to make.
With a few thousand dollars anyone can buy shop equipment sufficient to produce working guns in a couple of weeks.
Why is it more difficult to obtain (legally or illegally) hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes? There is much lower demand on those items among criminals, that is why nobody cared to organise a supply. Hundreds of criminals need small concealable guns to shoot individual people or use for robberies, intimidation, etc. - they have no use for hand greanades, let alone tanks.
Blowing a rival drug dealer with hand grenade will most likely hurt the one throwing it too. Installing a bomb in his car is much simpler. That is why it is much easier to get a bomb then a hand grenade. Criminals have no targets to use tanks/helicopters on and any tank/helicopter can be blown up by a maveric missle from a National Guard F16 as soon as it it detected.
Chemical/biological weapons are much harder to use safely then even explosives.
Demand for chemicals/biologicals in the world is counted by single units, that is why the consumers of it (political terrorists, religious groups, etc) have to produce those themselfves at enormous expence.
Where in the second amendment does it state that Americans have the right to keep and bear reasonable weapons?
Isn't it unconstitutional to ban the sale and ownership of hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes? Theoretically "not to be infringed" means that anything considered "arms" should not be regulated by the federal governent. Of course they did not have weapons of mass destruction then but if some simpleton today decides to dispute teh limitations on unreasonable weapons, all we would do is to adopt another amendment clarifying the issue. After all, the Constitution is not a holy writ, it's just a living document made by a bunch of people.
So we should really consider the goals of the founding fathers clearly described in the
Federalist Papers - as long as they still reflect our interests.
The need for citizens to have arms and for states to have militias was based on a danger of central government turning tyranical and using the army to subjugate people. So we need as much weapons and of such kind that a majority of the people could resist subjugation from the government or a minority.
Even if the whole US army (<1 mil fighting troops?) supports the tyrant, half of the US population armed with handguns and rifles will be able to successfully oppose establishment of a dictatorial regime - provided they care to oppose it.
On the other hand, owning weapons of mass destruction - nukes, gas, bio - removes that democracy in weapons - by allowing a minority to subjugate a majority. That is clearly a danger to our freedom as great as disarming the population.
Ironically, neither constitution nor Federal Papers explicitly say anything about private citizens using arms for private protection against criminals. Most likely because they could not conceive of possibility that a person may be denied a right to defend him/herself against violence. They only expected that an aspiring tyrant already in government preparing a coup (to establish an autoritarian regime) would ever have a reason to disarm the population in order to subjugate it.
miko
