Opinion: how powerful of a weapon should be legal?


PDA






MatthewVanitas
December 31, 2003, 01:01 AM
Been thinking about the extreme edges of firearms related libertarianism. Thought this would be an interesting question:

What is the most powerful type of weapon that an adult, non-felon, should be able to buy in Joe's Corner Gunshop?

No special permit, no competency tests, just a cash-and-carry.

For poll purposes, pick the most powerful category you believe should be available for general public purchase. If you like, explain why or why not certain categories should be permissible.

Just thought it would be a revealing exercise as to where folks draw the line. -MV

If you enjoyed reading about "Opinion: how powerful of a weapon should be legal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Preacherman
December 31, 2003, 01:08 AM
My rule of thumb is that any citizen should be able to purchase, carry and use any weapon that he/she can operate alone, from a normal shooting position, with accuracy and safety. Also, the weapon should fire non-explosive and/or non-incendiary ammunition.

That means that a Barrett .50 would be legal, as would just about any rifle. Full-auto weapons would be legal if they fit the same criteria - this includes tripod-mounted weapons, of course. However, anything crew-served, or firing explosive or incendiary ammunition, would be out for civilian ownership.

(Of course, it also means that I wouldn't qualify to own a S&W .500 Magnum - sure, I can operate it, but accurately??? In rapid fire??? :what: )

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 31, 2003, 01:12 AM
Any portable weapon designed to operate by one person or is crew-served.

Remember, the intent of the 2A was to protect the right of the people to possess military arms in the event that they were necessary to prevent tyranny.

In this day and age, up to crew-served machine guns and anti-tank weapons are a must since the military has tanks and APCs. Of course, sub guns and MBRs would be standard fare.

Special assessment for Artillery, AA guns, AA missiles, rockets, etc. because of complexity. Maybe proof that you were in Artillery or Air Defense (officer maybe) and have competency to rub a battery.

This should not be a fantasy, it should be reality.

Kaylee
December 31, 2003, 01:21 AM
My initial feeling is "anything conventional" -- that's my gut feeling.

Then I think... "wait a minute... do I REALLY think that having Billy Boy or GW with his finger on the button was actually SAFER than having JoeBob down the street with an A-bomb? Conversely, even if I believe that, would I consider JoeBob (or even Mohammad) being able to buy said thing over the counter an acceptable risk, if it kept my taxes on the south side of 5%, instead of 50%? I'm thinkin' if what it took to keep the politico's hands to themselves was the constant thread of the capital mall turning to glass and ash, it might be worth it. Whether one loses half their life to a nutcase's bomb, or to excessive taxation, the hours are gone all the same.


On a strict reading of the intent of the 2A though, I'd have to answer something to the effect of "whatever is necessary to retain parity of force between the People and the Armed Forces of the US." Thus anything this side of heavy artillery seems a gimme. Above that, I dunno. Once Delta gets Johnny Rico's power armor though, I'd say a nuke in every closet! :)

-K

Daedalus
December 31, 2003, 01:21 AM
My rule of thumb is that any citizen should be able to purchase, carry and use any weapon that he/she can operate alone, from a normal shooting position, with accuracy and safety.

I was going to say "Whatever the basic infantry soldier is trusted with" but I like your way better.

Rocket propelled grenades OK. Area attack weapons like mortars and field artillery - special license. Tactical nuke I do not really see how you would be able to afford it in the first place, and failing that how it would be used for the purposes of defending the security of a free state.

Baba Louie
December 31, 2003, 01:26 AM
Any arm(s) that a well regulated militia (being necessary for a free state) requires to maintain that liberty.
You must be able to deploy said arm with accuracy and be able to provide your own supplies of munitions and maintenance.

hillbilly
December 31, 2003, 01:33 AM
Uh, just something to consider about your question....

Under current US law and ATF enforcement of those laws, if it uses black powder, and shoots solid shot, it ain't even classified as a firearm.

So, uh, how about some 24 pounder cannon, anyone?

Those would be in the power range of anti-shipping weapons.

Seige mortars, Parrot rifled cannon, all perfectly legal to own right now.

hillbilly

inventory0297
December 31, 2003, 01:35 AM
But explosives/incendiaries/artillery/heavy mobile armor should require licensing and training. Nuclear weapons ownership should never be allowed by private individuals. This seems to be a reasonable restriction manifestly for the public good, as in the Schenk free speech case.

I would also like to own an Iowa class battleship if the government could see their way clear, they aren't using 'em.

swifter
December 31, 2003, 01:44 AM
A citizen should be able to own any weapon the government can.
Tom:D

bfason
December 31, 2003, 01:53 AM
Over the counter at Home Depot?

Are you guys nuts?

Combat-wombat
December 31, 2003, 01:55 AM
Any portable weapon designed to operate by one person or is crew-served.
That's basically what I think. Any standard infantry weapon that is portable. Maybe you'd be able to get a tank or howitzer, but you'd have to jump through alotta hoops.

Jeff White
December 31, 2003, 02:04 AM
I think that citizens should be able to own anything the government does. There is plenty of precedent for that. Privately owned and operated vessels were armed. There were plenty of privately held cannon at the time of the nations founding too. Cost alone would keep most of the types of weapons many of you don't trust your fellow citizens with out of their hands....

Jeff

tcdrennen
December 31, 2003, 02:21 AM
I would limit the nukes because of (1) the difficulty in handling/maintenance/storage with safety to the surrounding community and (2) not sure nukes can be justified for defense, or if so that conventional weapons wouldn't be more effective/efficient/cost effective anyway.

Actually, if we had the same kind of system as the colonials did, each community would organize its own militia and fund larger weapons by subscription, storing them in a community armory/arsenal while personal weapons are kept at home. Since the various state and federal laws prohibiting private paramilitary forces would probably preclude that (until repealed/overturned by some future sane government :scrutiny: ) limiting INDIVIDUAL or HOUSEHOLD arms to personal or crew served man-portable weapons could be justified. tanks and vehicle drawn or carried weapons might be attractive, but the small unit local militia may not be able to properly support same, and they should be encouraged to have their members armed and ready with the weapons they CAN use effectively.

minnesota oldie
December 31, 2003, 02:48 AM
Anything that doesn't have a red button. 5 4 3 2 1 Boom.

labgrade
December 31, 2003, 02:54 AM
Anything conventional, to include Stinger systems, etc.

Anything used as an offensive, or defensive system - including latest detections systems, etc.

& bfason, Yes. I can buy at any Piggly Wiggly stuff that could turn your hair blue .... ;)

bfason
December 31, 2003, 03:00 AM
& bfason, Yes. I can buy at any Piggly Wiggly stuff that could turn your hair blue ....

In your dreams you can.
:neener:

PrudentGT
December 31, 2003, 05:51 AM
What's the use of granting letters of marque unless some of us vacation aboard our very own Aegis class cruisers...?

Shweboner
December 31, 2003, 07:28 AM
I too am torn on this one. Common sense would tell me that any type of firearm would be okay (any size/caliber)

I want to agree with explosives, like RPG's Stingers, and other 'stationary' explosives, but what bothers me is that people may have these, but where the hell are the going to "practice" I mean how the hell do you get range time witha case full of RPG's? There goes the backstop!

But then again, where are you going to hit the range with a minigun?


You cant be to restrictive, yet you dont want some idiots out there messing everything up. A very fine line... thats why I vote for firearms only. If I can have an M249 I dont think I will miss the RPG too much.

~Brian

SapperLeader
December 31, 2003, 09:03 AM
I voted all conventional weapons, but I only concern with that is that safe storage of explosives. I do feel that storage sites should be regulated, so joe schmoe doesnt keep some nitroglycerine next to his fuel tank, and take my house out with his. As far as criminals getting thier hands on "dangerous weapons", Im pretty confident that they will get their dirty little paws on anything they want. FOr example, the last year, my national guard unit was on active duty for force protection for bases Fort Myer and Fort Mcnair. Mcnair, is located on P-street in downtown dc, a very nasty apart of town. I heard automatic gunfire almost as much as standard semiauto firing, and on at least two occasions, heard the sound of explosions.(granted rather small ones) So, if joe scumbag can play with full auto and explosives while commiting crimes, Joe citizen(me :) ) should be able to play with full auto, and use some c-4 for some stump removal in a safe legal manner. :)

Kharn
December 31, 2003, 09:09 AM
If you've got the cash (and hopefully have access to the land to use it properly, but collecting without shooting is fine with me), any conventional weapon should be available.

But, if a 155mm arty round overshoots your property and lands in a school yard, your *** is grass.

Kharn

Blackcloud6
December 31, 2003, 09:11 AM
As long as I use it responsibly, it shouldn't matter what I own.

Noe nukes and such, there is no way to use them resonsibly, you use them and a lot of people, animals and things get destroyed.

stevelyn
December 31, 2003, 09:32 AM
Any small arms, individual or crew served up to and including 20mm.
Mortars, light artillery and RPGs w/ a licensing system similar to most CHL proceedures.
Anti-aircraft guns including shoulder fired missles, heavy arty, and explosive materials w/ registration system similar to Class III procedures w/o tax and CLEO signature requirement.
Nukes tactical or otherwise are definitely out. These truly belong in the g g g g government's (there I said it) hands.

The problem is not with citizens possessing the more destructive devices and materials, but rather the secure storage of them.

HankB
December 31, 2003, 09:43 AM
I would also like to own an Iowa class battleship if the government could see their way clear, they aren't using 'em. Well, last week there was an aircraft carrier listed at auctionarms.com . . . .

Anyway, I figure if a typical GI has one, the average civilian should have one, too . . . but these days, I'd draw the line before we get to things like satchel charges, Stinger missles, etc. I hate to parrot the anti's line of "You don't NEED (fill in the blank) for self defense . . . " but seriously, as a person who drives over bridges and has the occasional need to fly commercial, I really would rather not have shoulder fired AA missiles, RPGs and high explosives sold over the counter on a simple "cash and carry" basis.

So . . . rifles, pistols, shotguns, semi and full auto would be OK, silencers and suppressors OK, short-barreled rifles and shotguns OK, Barrett .50s OK, MG42s, M60s, Vickers guns, etc. OK, maybe even Solothurn and Lahti 20mm OK . . . above that, I guess I'm an "anti gun bigot."

Sean Smith
December 31, 2003, 10:39 AM
Nukes are indescriminate and impractical. Ditto biological or chemical weapons. Beyond that... :D

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 10:58 AM
I voted "Any Conventional Weapon", but I do have a few stipulations....

1. Vehicle-mounted weapons have to meet state requirements for passenger/comercial vehicles (no tanks tearing up my tax-paid roads, please...:uhoh: )

2. Special training (offered by the gov't) for explosives licensing--including proper storage & usage of materials.

3. No nukes. (Not really a DEFENSIVE weapon, anyway...:what: )

4. SEVERE penalties for criminal misuse of ANY weapon. (As it should be--none of this "poor little Jamal was just misunderstood" bull-:cuss: ...)

As for the "where will we be able to shoot them" question--I'm sure entrepreners will solve that problem...:D

Balog
December 31, 2003, 11:28 AM
A question to all those who'd like to regulate explosives: do you reload?
Because if you do, you just granted the BATF permission to do random checks of your home to ensure compliance with the "safe storage" laws for that powder you bought.

I cannot comprehend why some people think that anyone so criminally irresponsible as to store nitro in an unsafe way could be trusted with a gun of any sort. Or a car for that matter. As to those who worry about over the counter RPG's taking out airliners.... since when did making something illegal keep it out of the criminals hands?

Dave Markowitz
December 31, 2003, 11:35 AM
We should be able to own anything short of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons. NBC stuff is too indiscriminate in its effects, and the ramifications of improper storage are severe.

The Framers clearly contemplated private ownership of weapons up to and including warships, as evidenced by the clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Likewise, artillery pieces were often owned by private citizens at that time.

Obiwan
December 31, 2003, 12:40 PM
I can see it all now...

You are in your backyard.....grilling steaks when you hear the last words you will ever hear uttered....

Your neighbor...on the other side of the fence....


saying.....

OOPS!:what:

Balog
December 31, 2003, 12:58 PM
You mean your neighbor who didn't know the four rules and just shot you with his deer rifle? Or who improperly stored gasoline?

cratz2
December 31, 2003, 01:28 PM
Well, I think any handgun, rifle or shotgun not capable of full auto fire should be legal (ie no restrictions on FNs etc...) and I don't really think there would be a huge demand for smallish (MAC10/mini AK and smaller) full autos would be sky high as long as the prices stay up.

I must admit that a full auto .50 or a minigun in the hands of the wong guy scares me a bit more than a Glock or a bolt rifle. :uhoh:

AJ Dual
December 31, 2003, 01:45 PM
The unrestricted ownership of weaponry has to be viewed in the Libertarian context where it is possible, and conversely, the Libertarian context it would help create.

You'd have to imagine a Libertarian state, a-la L. Neil Smith where this is possible. Perhaps a "Libertarian States of America" or the parallel world of the North American Confederacy of his Probability Broach novels...

The LSA or the NAC would have no taxes, therefore no powerful central government to threaten the freedom of it's citizens.

Much of all "crime" is done away with out of sheer irrelevancy, because only acts that are Malum Per Se, (i.e. acts that directly harm others) are offenses. This means no drug wars, no gangs, no mob, no addict crimes, since they all exist and fight over the profiting from artificial scarcity created by governmental fiat.

Everyone who wishes to work, even part-time, can earn a living wage, as the lack of government regulation and taxes, and the lack subsequent burdens passed along through consumer goods etc. effectively doubles, triples, and quadruples the buying power of the individual.

External terrorists do not attack the NAC because it's a giant Switzerland, neither friend nor enemy to anyone. It just "is", and any dealings with other nations are between its individuals and consensually formed groups, and not the "state". There is terrorism, but it's domestic, and caused by those looking for their own self-serving pretext to establish an authoritarian regime.

Therefore while these weapons are possible, few bother to own them since they're still expensive, inconvenient to operate alone, and not really needed. Those that do have them, fear the direct retribution of their neighbors from misuse than some long drawn out process of courts and charges from the state. Fiscal liability is also swift and certain, there is no "bankruptcy" protection from the state. If Joe Sixpack blows up your house with an "oopsie" with his 81mm mortar, the courts will likely award you his. :D Most military vehicles and crew served weaponry is really owned jointly (like partners in a yacht or plane) by local militias that serve in lieu of standing armies.

NBC is still frowned upon as it violates the non-initiation of force. It is nearly impossible to employ them without harming innocents.

Aside that, Balog and others make the point that we marshal destructive forces comparable to artillery and RPG's every day. They're called cars.

Who would you feel safer next to? A gun-nut neighbor who owns an RPG in his safe, and takes it to Knob Creek for some fun, or on the freeway one lane over from soccer-mommie in a Hummer H2 doing 65Mph while simultaneously talking on her cell phone, applying makeup, and scolding her kids in the back seat?

It's all kinetic energy and foot-pounds. The difference is merely in our heads. It's a matter of semantics and perception, one is a "weapon" the other is a "car". In reality, both are "tools", and you want to be standing in front of neither of them.

And as others have pointed out, privateers, merchants, and trading forts all possessed privately owned cannon in colonial times.

It is also worth noting that when you look at things like Waco, is a government monopoly over "military weaponry" really somehow "superior"? Ask a Native American or perhaps a Jew.

All of the great disasters, genocides, massacres, etc. have all been caused by government, or at least the abuse of government, and not by a "lack of government". Even the current genocides being conducted in pseudo-anarchistic regions of Africa were really facilitated by one side being gullible enough to disarm at government's behest.

Balog
December 31, 2003, 01:49 PM
Mala in se = bad in and of itself. Mala prohiba = bad because prohibited.
Just to clear that up. "Malum Prohibitum" is, I believe, not even Latin. Tho I suppose it could be a conjugation.

AJ Dual
December 31, 2003, 01:51 PM
Ahh Balog, so noted, thanks..

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
December 31, 2003, 01:57 PM
Nukes just don't offer me the degree of surgical precision I desire.

Something along the lines of a M136 AT4 recoilless rifle might, though.

Realistically, a Solothurn or nice 50BMG rifle is probably more realistic as far as the upper end of a man-portable-in-a-pinch Loudenboomerhardgenkickfer.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Zak Smith
December 31, 2003, 02:04 PM
Those of you drawing your line at "nukes" need to consider the scenario in which I own a Starship Cruiser And Need To Protect My Ship In The Intergalactic Cold Of Space against Pirates.

As long as the possession of the weapon itself does not produce an immediate danger to others, then it's okay. If I'm out cruising in space, mining asteroids and so forth, I'm golden. If I'm storing a nuke or 10,000 of TNT in my basement, my neighbors have a legitimate concern.

-z

harpethriver
December 31, 2003, 02:15 PM
Before we jump right in let's ask the purpose of such laws and restrictions. I think we can agree minimally that would be to save lives, and to prevent injuries and criminal acts. Next let's examine how our gov't. has approached regulating the use of other dangerous but inanimate objects, i.e. automobiles and alcohol. Let's say you've got a 16 yr. old, and you've decided for that 1st vehicle you're gonna give Lil' Johnny/ Mary a 400 H.P. Porsche Turbo. Now before you accuse me of exaggerating, I'm in da' car bidness, and I've not only seen this happen, but seen it many times over. Now let's say Johnny's had a drinking/drug problem, but he's tested clean, so you get him this Porsche as a reward. Johnny goes out and gets slobernockered, kills a few people, goes to Juvi for a few years(if at all), and life goes on. Bottom line is that alcohol and automobiles kill so many more people than guns, under any circumstances. Can you imagine the outcry if the government limited the horsepower of the vehicle you could drive, (read ban .50 cal. weapons), or had blood alcohol/drug testing devices attatched to the ignition of your car(read "decoder ring" trigger lock devices). So before you answer this "survey", ask yourself, do we really want to go there? What a can of worms that would be!

Spot77
December 31, 2003, 02:18 PM
Any conventional until proven otherwise that you can't handle it.

I was sorta' surprised to see the number of people voting for full tactical nukes though....

dav
December 31, 2003, 02:25 PM
Seems many here don't understand why the 2nd amendment exists.

It is not about people having toys to play with. It is about the individual people who make up the country being stronger than the politicians in charge of the country, or as strong as the meanest bad guy they will ever conceivably meet.

I vote with the others who say there is no limit on what individuals can have. Remember, we usually say gun laws don't work because then only criminals have guns.

Same for nukes. It is cost and complexity that stops terrorists from using them, not the law.

If ANY ONE in the world can possess a weapon, I should legally be able to possess the same weapon.

Or else what is the meaning of self-defense?

MeekandMild
December 31, 2003, 02:39 PM
Well, it looks like a bimodal distribution curve. :)

I voted on the lower mode, which is just about what we have today with few exceptions for collectors. 50's and MGs.

I'm sure I will get a lot of flack about this, but I must point out the founding fathers were fully aware of the fact that there are different levels of competence in the world. So they wrote the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution with the general reasonable man in mind.

Too bad it hasn't worked all the time.

I might be perfectly comfortable with Sam having a bazooka to shoot prairie dogs with, but looking at some of the civilian tyrants we've had in our history the idea of them being freely available is pretty scary.

Not calling any present day names, imagine what our history would have been like if all the 19th century robber barons like Leland Stanford and Andrew Carnagie had owned tactical nuclear devices. The US would be a collection of baronies in perpetual warfare like Frankish Europe.

Well, I will call one name. What if the nutball Hinkley had been able to buy a bazooka?

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 31, 2003, 02:48 PM
Yeah, a concealed carry bazooka. Or a CCW squad assault weapon (30 pounds?)

Groups of militias with self-propelled artillery and tanks invading neighboring baronies. Oh yeah, that happened to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and Sudetanland and Poland and France, and China and SE Asia.

If we have equal arms, and choose to employ them, it would be a fool's errand to be the aggressor. No matter who that aggressor is (militias, foreign invaders, BATFE, etc.)

Skunkabilly
December 31, 2003, 02:58 PM
Question.

1. How many miles per gallon does an M2 Bradley get
2. Should licensing and registration for tanks be increased to reflect wear and tear on public roads?
3. If guys in F350s park in parking spaces marked 'compact', what kind of work will the 25mm do on one of those? :D

rock jock
December 31, 2003, 03:03 PM
You should have added doomsday weapon to the list. Still theoretical at this point, but should one be developed, there is no reason (according to the "I have a right to own nukes" crowd) that every living person on the face of the planet should not have the ability to own a weapon which would destroy all of mankind. Of course, logic would dictate this to be absurd, but I'm sure there are a few who would attempt all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it.

Drjones
December 31, 2003, 03:10 PM
This question has already been answered by ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26432&item=2450501898

:D :D :D

Do I hear a THR pool starting up?

I get to be captain since I found it!!! :D

Drjones
December 31, 2003, 03:15 PM
Seems many here don't understand why the 2nd amendment exists.

It is not about people having toys to play with. It is about the individual people who make up the country being stronger than the politicians in charge of the country, or as strong as the meanest bad guy they will ever conceivably meet.

I vote with the others who say there is no limit on what individuals can have. Remember, we usually say gun laws don't work because then only criminals have guns.

Same for nukes. It is cost and complexity that stops terrorists from using them, not the law.

If ANY ONE in the world can possess a weapon, I should legally be able to possess the same weapon.


This needs repeating.

45R
December 31, 2003, 03:15 PM
The Mother Ship :)

Poohgyrr
December 31, 2003, 03:17 PM
Without reading all these posts, if I wanted to pay attention to:
1. Most people have already proven their responsibility, so I don't feel a need to be scared they will go "bonkers" (and there are consequences);
2. The 2nd A is pretty clear and concise;
3. Back then the big rig transport semi's of the day (wooden sailing ships) often had personal firearms (cannons, rifles, handguns, ie the same xact firearms as the military); and
4. Local hotels (Sutter's Fort here in Sacramento) also had the same firearms as above (stop in at Sutter's Fort and look at his personal cannons (http://www.pashnit.com/roads/cal/SuttersFort.htm));

Then I might wonder why the politicians are so upset. Two other things come to mind, first, upset politicians happen throughout history & all ovet the world; and second: biological & nuclear weapons make this an interesting topic. Where would we draw the line?? Well, we know the anti's have already drawn the line......

Malone LaVeigh
December 31, 2003, 03:45 PM
All nukes ought to be illegal, including those possessed by the state. World wide. Other than that, I woudn't control anything, just maybe some of the people, e.g., violent criminals, the insane, people trying to start private armies.

MicroBalrog
December 31, 2003, 06:36 PM
people trying to start private armies.

So militias are bad now?

Spot77
December 31, 2003, 06:42 PM
Sorry Doc, I think the pool got started a while ago in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55555


But I'm sure if you ask nicely, you can be the Captain:D

fastbolt
December 31, 2003, 08:22 PM
Hmmm ...

I don't know the answer to your question.

How "powerful" of a mind should the ordinary citizen be permitted to develop? Who gets to make that decision?

So-called "common knowledge" can often be used improperly, and certainly in illegal manner ... and stupidly, if we're being candid ... with tragic and deadly results.

Of course, "weapons" are sort of reflections of "tools" ... humans being accomplsihed tool-makers & tool-users ... and while tools often only require someone to pick them up and "use" them, and not actually "build them", it can be said that a certain level of societal control of the general availability of "SOME TOOLS" would be appropriate ...

Who gets to make that call?

Well, aren't we supposed to be a government "of the people" & "by the people", and "for the people" etc., etc.? If I remember my civics right, our Republic doesn't allow for a "tyranny of the majority", since we're not a true democracy ... but the governed people have a representational voice in how they're governed, WITH a central collection of documents to which our desired laws must conform ... which prevents the simple majority from "voting" in any damned thing they may want from one day to the other. The different "branches" which make up our cherished form of self-government seem to do a decent job of preventing one of them from unduly "ruling" the governed people without some level of oversight and review. It still certainly looks better than anything else out there we see around the world, doesn't it?

Where did we go wrong? :scrutiny: Just kidding ... :)

I honestly don't have the answer to your question, but I'm glad it doesn't rest with any particular "individual", you know? No "kings" or royalty desired ...

Well, maybe if it were ME, then I might go along with it ... :D :what: :neener:

as evidenced by the clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal
Hmmm ... :uhoh: Would that come with decent Medical & Dental?

Werewolf
December 31, 2003, 09:42 PM
but seriously, as a person who drives over bridges and has the occasional need to fly commercial, I really would rather not have shoulder fired AA missiles, RPGs and high explosives sold over the counter on a simple "cash and carry" basis.

So what you're saying is that you - well - uhhhh - don't trust us then?

sm
December 31, 2003, 10:18 PM
Kaylee touched on something I agree with...

-Not to mention " an armed society is..." .
-Keep the gummit in check
-Send a message to other gummits
- I don't do "control"," priviledge", "permisson" - well- I get uncomfortable...means people have control and can take stuff away.

Therefore, any weapon built we the people should have. Simple, to the point, no clarification needed. Don't mince , mis-quote, mis-construe anything.

4v50 Gary
December 31, 2003, 10:35 PM
Up to M-2 OK by me.

Regarding larger stuph, let that be held by the community like in the days of the olde. Cannons were stored in arsenals and ready for public use when the redcoats came. We don't want nuts (and we have no shortage of them) shooting down airplanes or taking out their neighbors.

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 11:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but seriously, as a person who drives over bridges and has the occasional need to fly commercial, I really would rather not have shoulder fired AA missiles, RPGs and high explosives sold over the counter on a simple "cash and carry" basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So what you're saying is that you - well - uhhhh - don't trust us then?

No. I think he means that the Stingers would be a rental...:neener:

Balog
January 1, 2004, 03:34 AM
AJ Dual: no problem. I wish I had a round of 7.62x54R for every time I've tried to write out Latin or Gaelic from memory and messed up. And that doesn't even touch on my pronunciation :eek:

Orthonym
January 1, 2004, 07:35 AM
Nuclear weapons are guarded by guys holding ordinary infantry rifles. There's your clue. Sure you can have a nuke if you can guard it all by yourself. Obviously you can't. You have to sleep some time, and there's only one of you.Also, if your nearest neighbor lived closer than 2 or 3 miles away, I betcha he'd be right nervous, even if you swore up and down that it was just a little neutron bomb, without much blast, and no fallout to speak of.

I voted for the right to own a nuke, but I don't have the resources to keep one safe from bandits and other bad guys. I don't mind an honest private citizen holding one if I know he's honest and has enough good friends or hired guys to keep the thing safe. I, of course, get to decide if my neighbor is honest and trustworthy enough to have a nuke, in consultation with the guy's other neighbors.

Smoke
January 1, 2004, 10:18 AM
I am really surprised at the number of "Full Auto" votes.

Smoke

Chris Rhines
January 1, 2004, 10:34 AM
Anything that the government owns, and then some.

- Chris

The Rabbi
January 1, 2004, 01:15 PM
One of the recurring issues (to me anyway) is accountability. So a guy passes a background check and picks up his Stinger at Missiles-R-Us and then gets laid off and decides to take out the parking lot at his previous place of employment. You can take him, charge him and send him to life or the death penalty but the fact remains that he's caused a lot ofproperty damage and doesnt have the money to pay for it.
I would say I'd support the following:
pistols: everything, with NICS check, including silencers
Rifles: Everything, as above
Full auto: something between simple NICS and what we have now but no restrictions after purchase (e.g. can move them out of state without notifying ATF)
Explosives: what we do now for full auto plus yearly bond for destructive acts. Includes vehicles like tanks.
Nuculur bums: either no or else collect enough fees to cover monthly inspection for safe handling. I mean, where are you going to practice with one anyway? Syria?

NorthernExtreme
January 1, 2004, 01:51 PM
Any weapon / Weapons System that can be carried, operated, and maintained by a team of 3 or less should be protected. And should include any Weapon / Weapons System of common issue to the Federal Military (or equivalent non-issue). Exceptions should be granted for any Weapon / Weapons System already in possession and munitions already in possession. And any Weapon / Weapons System of common issue to the Federal Military should be made available to the citizen Militia without restriction and at reasonable price.


Should allow any ammo / munitions that can be stored for 2 years (at room temp and dry environment) without the need to be repackaged or have the packing inspected, Or need radioactive shielding or Chem. /Bio protection (no Nukes or Chem./Bio). (Should only include munitions of common issue to Federalized Military and not restrict any munitions [conventional] issued to the Federalized Military from possession)

This may give and advantage to the "enemy" in some respects. But if the enemy is domestic; I doubt they could repel the numbers of citizens (so armed) even with the larger weapons, and I suspect there would be enough internal resistance in the military (refusing to conduct military operations against freedom-fighting Americans / refusing to support a Tyrannical/Oppressive Government) that the military would be held in check for the most part. Therefore allowing the efforts of the citizens to proceed without the need for Nukes, Chem. /Bio, Tanks, War ships, Plains, and large Artillery.

At the same time the citizens would realize that the effort would be tough (fighting government supporting troops and equipment) and require extreme sacrifices from them. Therefore insuring the citizens only act when the need is real and needed. Civil rebellion should never be taken lightly or without extreme need, nor be made a futile action due to restrictions placed on the People. The Voting process SHOULD take care of the rest.

If the Enemy were foreign; it would allow the people to possess weapons that could reasonably be used to repel invasion (sporting firearms have little or no practical use here), and give the military enough time to support/reinforce the American civilian/Militia forces. Or allow activated Militia/citizen forces to assume a limited military roll to support federal forces in the fight against foreign threat.

After all, this accurately represents the roll of the Militia, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment! (IMO)

WilderBill
January 1, 2004, 02:12 PM
I voted in the anything short of nukes range.
I beleive that is enough to give our, or any other government reason to think twice before doing anything that might be considered as threatning.

While most of us, most of the time, don't really need a whole lot of firepower, there are exceptions.
Take home invasion, for instance.
Most of us would be well served by a short shotgun.
However, it depends on the invaders. I know of some folks down in Waco that had a real need of stingers and anti-tank weapons to repel an armed home invasion.

Also, it seems like it would be great fun to own a 37mm anti-tank gun.
Of course, they are usless against a modern tank, but could be towed behind the family car to a remote location and maned by a crew of one.
Maybe a suitable target would be a rock on the side of a hill at 1,000 yards? :D

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 1, 2004, 02:24 PM
I think the FA/Burst MP5/MP10 would be much nicer than a short shotgun for home invasion. Actually, several :D

tyme
January 2, 2004, 01:06 AM
Practicality and cost limit ownership of nuclear weapons better than laws ever could. If antimatter weapons become practical and antimatter is abundant, will laws help the situation?

artherd
January 2, 2004, 07:55 AM
I think that we as indivuduals should be able to own anything that any Sovrign Nation should be able to own.

This basically means everything that can be used effectively withought causing long-term after effects. (particularily those which would out-last the lifetime of the weilder.

Yes, that means I'm against the ownership of Nukes, chem, bio, etc by Sovrign Nations as well. (perfect world scenario, I'm also NOT for say just the US dumping it's nukes. It has to be everybody.) Anti-matter weapons are fine, they're just as punchy, but don't ???? up ground zero for TEN THOUSAND YEARS!



The list of people able to own, say, an aircraft carrier, is a small one. Unemployed Joe Bimbo who keeps gas cans next to his hot-water-heater will not have one.


One of the recurring issues (to me anyway) is accountability. So a guy passes a background check and picks up his Stinger at Missiles-R-Us and then gets laid off and decides to take out the parking lot at his previous place of employment. You can take him, charge him and send him to life or the death penalty but the fact remains that he's caused a lot ofproperty damage and doesnt have the money to pay for it.


You think so? Stingers cost $40grand.

Like it or not, expensive weaponry makes sure that the owner generally has a lot to loose by it's potential mis-use. You don't knock over 7-11s with a $40grand weapon because you can't support your crack habbit. But you may one day have to use it to shoot down, say, a hellicopter that wants to touch down on your roof, land 8 guys and abduct your family and ransome them back to you for $600million. (valid self defense concern.)

The world is a big place, what may not seem 'valid' or 'reasonable' to expect happen to you, may be just that to someone else.


Full Auto machineguns (~$10k each) are much the same. there has been only ONE crime commited with a legal full-auto. It was by someone who actually did NOT PAY for it (if I recall correctly. Actually, it may have been a post 86 gun?) In any event, the man was an off-duty LEO performing a *contract killing*.



I'd consider accepting the ban of any weapon that the government also bans for its own self.

Well said!

I am only for Nations ownership of nukes in the current geo-political arena, as they are the 800lb gorrillas.

If say anti-matter charges existed that were a bigger (more effective/powerful/supior/etc) gun, I would toss out the nukes and their 10,000year bagage very quickly.

mercedesrules
January 2, 2004, 03:29 PM
And, the correct answer is:
Anything that the government owns, and then some.

- Chris (Rhines)

MR

meathammer
January 2, 2004, 06:03 PM
I voted anything conventional. This is what my heart feels. What my gut tells me is what will happen when the first mental giant has an AD in his garage with an RPG, or lobs a mortar round into his neighbor's house. :uhoh:

If everyone was responsible and safe it could work. I'm feeling a little conflicted on this one. There would have to be some guidelines obviously and strict penalties for misuse.

Nukes, no way.

braindead0
January 2, 2004, 06:29 PM
Anything the Gov't has..

I voted anything conventional. This is what my heart feels. What my gut tells me is what will happen when the first mental giant has an AD in his garage with an RPG, or lobs a mortar round into his neighbor's house.
They already do, by not properly maintaining natural gas lines and the like. We had a house blow up near cleveland that would have rivaled an RPG...more like a satchel bomb.

We trust the idiot at the gas station to not drop a lit match into a 90% empty in ground fuel tank (that'd blow really nice I'd bet)....

As far as explosive and the like, face it.. who doesn't know where to get the necessary information to make improvised munitions? The criminals already have access to high explosives whether we like it or not.

I think nukes should be okay too, in fact.. the Army could hold a nuke sale monthly to help support themselves...

MeekandMild
January 2, 2004, 07:03 PM
All nukes ought to be illegal, including those possessed by the state. World wide. Malone, IMHO all nukes should be converted for use as drive engines for interplanetary spacecraft. But then it would raise the question of how big of an asteroid could an individual person own. :what:

Bruce H
January 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
The reason Stingers cost 40K is the government is the only buyer. Open it up to everybody and competition would take over. Wally world for $99 all day everyday.

fastbolt
January 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
Okay folks ...

If even a small percentage of you are EVER allowed to possess the choices you indicated, I'm moving to parts far, far away.:) Not that you'd mind, I'm sure. ;)

I mean, it's incredibly dangerous just driving down the roads with most of the people that are given drivers licenses nowadays, and "allowed" to own the large, not-easily-damaged-by-regular-cars SUV's & trucks ... and the high speed, high powered "performance" motorcycles, cars & trucks. Egads! :what: And I'd like to get away from most of THEM when I retire ... so I can use MINE in peace, of course.

Now, you want to give them nuclear capability?!? :uhoh: :what: :neener:

tyme
January 2, 2004, 07:55 PM
braindead0, the batf puts out a useful list for anyone seeking to make explosives.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/listofexp.htm

All you have to do is figure out how to get those compounds without a LEUP.

Malone LaVeigh
January 2, 2004, 09:33 PM
Malone, IMHO all nukes should be converted for use as drive engines for interplanetary spacecraft. Sounds good to me. As long as they're kept parked outside of the van Allen belt.

If you enjoyed reading about "Opinion: how powerful of a weapon should be legal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!