Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

No. You'd aim below the windows.
You'd also have to account for the movement of the aircraft, but since it is a zero-angle shot, that's not so hard.

 

And so, we're back to your claim that "it just makes sense" to have the same minimum age for both guns and alcohol, because, as you claimed, " alcohol in the hands of someone under the age of 21, is not more deadly than a gun in the hands of someone under the age of 21."
Can you support your statement, or not?
If not, then how does it "just make sense" to have the same minimum age for both?

 

Depends on the definition. The most commonly used definition of 'assault weapons' as defined by the UN and followed by most nations includes the "select fire" function where the weapon is capable of 'firing more than one projectile per pull of the trigger'. In the US, those types of weapons are defined as 'fully automatic' and are prohibited except with a special 'destructive devices' permit from the BATFE.

The primary reason for this difference of definitions is because US laws currently primarily focus on 'discriminate' vs 'indiscriminate' weaponry. Fully automatic weapons are designed for suppressive fire, which is indiscriminate.

 

Should nukes be legal too?

 

You did not answer the question
Why do you believe would the destruction caused with either weapon COULD be "unbelievable"?
Remember that we have seen, first hand, the destruction from nuclear weapons.

 

As I'm sure most of what you think you know returns.

 

So why in your opinion should it be 21 for alcohol but 18 for guns? Why should it not be the same age for both?

 

Uh, because taking out an airliner would be unbelievable!

 

I think if we are going to age discriminate at all it should be the same for both. And the most logical age is 18 based on military service age and other responsibilities assumed by 18 year olds.

 

I don't believe that anyone has the right to limit what peaceful people do.

 

How is the damage caused by an airliner crash "unbelievable"?
Why would not not believe that amount of damage?

 

The same way that September 11 was unbelievable, just not AS unbelievable as September 11.

 

Ok... and now that we've been through 9-11 and seen airliners bring down giant buildings, how can the damage cause by the crash of a random airliner be "unbelievable"?

 

More importantly, the destruction caused could result in over 500 people dying instantly, if an A380 was taken out. Literally nobody would fly ever again, bringing an end to air travel.

 

Do you think that some mass murderers might have perhaps at one stage in their life been "peaceful?"

 

I'm guessing though, that you don't believe that there should be an age restriction.

 

The right to bear arms is limited in reasonable ways just as other right are limited in reasonable ways. Example: Convicted felons may not purchase or possess.

 

What about not all arms being available?

 

And do you agree that they should be banned?

 

No, I cannot support it - I was giving my opinion. Now, simple question: should the minimum age be the same for alcohol and guns, and what should the age be for both?

 

So the bullet would have to penetrate and exit the aircraft body and instrumentation systems before hitting the pilot?

 

I never said that I found it! So you STILL haven't supported your claim the there is a right to not be slandered.

 

Yeah, that too. Shoulder fired rockets, for example, hand grenades, etc. There are limits.

 

A world government?

 

I have been debating people in this thread who think that for example an FIM-92 should be perfectly legal. What would your argument be against this idea?