Las Vegas Sun

September 21, 2014

Currently: 89° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

A thought about weapons, legality

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Where do we draw the line? When are they going to let me buy a shoulder-fired rocket launcher? A well-regulated militia needs shoulder-fired rocket launchers and fully automatic .50-caliber machine guns. It’s my right under the Second Amendment. When will those liberals in Washington understand that rocket launchers don’t bring down 747s; people do. Right, NRA?

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 10 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the facts about gun controls are clearly on the side of the NRA. It wins the arguments made against it on the merits of the evidence. As soon as anti-gun rights people realize this and move on, the better likelihood for a reasonable debate on both sides with reforms. Trust me, RPG's will never be allowed under the Second Amendment. Not because it fails on the merits of the facts because it doesn't. "Right to carry and bear" applies to RPG's. But because it [RPG's] fails at common sense.

    CarmineD

  2. Well done William, well done!

  3. Most NRA reasoning could apply to RPGs and 50 cal fully automatic machine guns. Common sense tells us that the words; The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed shouldn't include hand held rocket launchers that could bring down a 747. Wait....the NRA and common sense doesn't sound right together...nevermind

  4. "Where do we draw the line? When are they going to let me buy a shoulder-fired rocket launcher?"

    Bacon -- because your letter isn't a serious one, expect no serious answers. To me all you proved is how profoundly ignorant you are of what it means to be a citizen of this republic.

    "Like it or not, agree with it or not, the facts about gun controls are clearly on the side of the NRA. . .Right to carry and bear" applies to RPG's. But because it [RPG's] fails at common sense."

    CarmineD -- actually those parts of our Constitutions say "keep and bear." Big difference. Your point overall is good -- it hinges on how the courts define "Arms." I've seen decisions in other states' high courts including billy clubs and sawed-off shotguns in that respect, one of them defended a convicted felon caught with a knife.

    Overall this whole debate is about whittling down a fundamental liberty -- self-defense and militias -- to yet another one requiring government permission. Most fools posting mocking letters like Bacon's fail to realize attacking the Bill of Rights isn't going to end with the Second Amendment.

    "The foundation of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans is the U.S. Constitution, the longest surviving constitution of any nation in history. To be civically unaware is to diminish our freedom, but knowing our history makes us all better Americans." -- George Nethercutt Jr., former Congressman in his book "In Tune with America"

  5. "CarmineD -- actually those parts of our Constitutions say "keep and bear." " @ Killer B

    You are absolutely correct and that's exactly what I meant. Thank you.

    I always know if I misstate a fact, and I do on occasion, that you will be here to set me straight.

    CarmineD

  6. "I always know if I misstate a fact, and I do on occasion, that you will be here to set me straight."

    CarmineD -- only if it's something important. "Keep and bear" has so much more meaning than "carry and bear," especially when criminally accused.

    "Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." -- Democritus (460-370 B.C.E.)

  7. "CarmineD -- only if it's something important." @ Killer B

    Thank you, I welcome it.

    CarmineD

  8. "Arms" - most commonly defined as those weapons normally used/carried by an infantryman - which also ties in to "militia." A historical definition is "...Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another."(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arms) or, in U.S. Colonial times "...weapons that could be carried (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html).

    I've been unable to find an official NRA definition of "arms" but it seems to be restricted only to portable firearms, or to any weapon an individual wants to own.

    Under ALL of these definitions, however, Mr. Bacon's letter is definitely NOT an example of "Reductio ad absurdum." Indeed, under most or all of these definitions, even MORE modern "arms" are covered: hand grenades, incendiary devices, smoke generators, tear gas devices, RPGs (both the modern variety and the WWII variety which used a rifle shot to propel a grenade), bayonets, swords, spears. ALL can be carried by a single infantryman. ALL are currently, or have in the past been, used by infantries.

    The question we SHOULD be debating is not over the basic right, it rather over the proper and necessary regulation of that right. We seem to already have settled the question of the basic "right". Try carrying a loaded M1, with bayonet affixed, down the middle of Fremont Street (LV) or Virginia Street (Reno) in the position photos show used by Marines hitting the beach at Tarawa. I'd guess that the local police would respond in under 2 minutes, and you'd be on the ground in no more than 2.5 minutes.

  9. "Try carrying a loaded M1, with bayonet affixed, down the middle of Fremont Street (LV) or Virginia Street (Reno) in the position photos show used by Marines hitting the beach at Tarawa. I'd guess that the local police would respond..."

    renorobert -- Erik Scott's heirs can tell you about that.

    "I wonder how many people desire or advocate walking down Fremont Street, Las Vegas Blvd or Virgina Street in Reno with guns?"

    RefNV -- why just those streets? Why not any street in America? More important, why would their be fear of armed, law-abiding citizens at all?

    "If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)

  10. Step one: take the guns away from illegal invaders. Nevada law says they can't have them but clearly not enforcing the law--since crime after crime with guns by illegals, murdering Americans. More laws won't help if we don't enforce the laws we already have.