1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun control.... where does it end?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by natedog, Jan 12, 2003.

  1. natedog

    natedog Well-Known Member

    Let's say that you could dictate gun control laws. I know +90% of us would allow the sale of full auto, suppressors, make the manufacture of hi-capacity magazines legal again, "evil" features on autoloading weapons, and most other laws. But where does it end? Should we allow Joe Schmoe to posess LAW rockets, 105mm Howitzers, Daisy Cutter bombs, Sidewinder Missiles, and other so-called destructive devices ( I know price would make this a moot point for most of us, but still, bear with me)?
  2. Preacherman

    Preacherman Well-Known Member

    My take? I'd allow private ownership of any weapon that can be carried, and fired from a standing position, by a single individual, and which fires solid (i.e. non-explosive, non-incendiary) ammunition. These requirements would eliminate crew-served weapons, and would also restrict things like cannon, etc. that can't be carried, or fired from a standing position.
  3. Mike Irwin

    Mike Irwin Well-Known Member

    They can have my Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
  4. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Well-Known Member

    I'm pretty much with the Preacherman: If it isn't crew-served and not an area of effect weapon, I'd allow it to be in the hands of Joe Public.
  5. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    During the early days of the Republic private citizens owned all of the same weapons the government had. The only limit was what you could afford. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be that way today.

    It's not possession..it's the use that should be regulated. As long as you follow the four universal rules with your howitzer or stinger, or MLRS.

    I wish you hadn't said that..now I have to shop for attack subs and destroyers :D Not that it bothers me that YOU have one...but a prudent man knows that if the good guys have em..so do the bad guys.

  6. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    Emotionally and practically, I'm with Preacherman.

    BUT the Constitution does have that interesting clause about Congress being able to write "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Which is another way of saying they could hire private battleships for military purposes.

    Uhhh..."private battleship"?

    In 1791, the basic warship was the single most potent piece of military equipment available.
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    Emotionally and practically, I'm with Preacherman.

    BUT the Constitution does have that interesting clause about Congress being able to write "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Which is another way of saying they could hire private battleships for military purposes.

    Uhhh..."private battleship"?

    In 1791, the basic warship was the single most potent piece of military equipment available.
  8. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    Frankly I believe according to our constitution, the government has no right to restrict what kinds of arms we own.

    So if I can afford it and I want to own an F-16 or an M1 Abrams tank or even a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier then by God I can own one.

    People tend to forget that the constitution doesn't tell the people what they can and can't do (well at least not when it was written) it only tells government what it can and can't do and what restrictions they can place on the people.
  9. labgrade

    labgrade Member In Memoriam


    Get's a big A+

    The (previously capitalized) consitution doesn't limit us, it limits them.
  10. GhostShooter

    GhostShooter Well-Known Member

    I personally agree with preacherman but I've run into this argument enough. The anti always comes back with, "Well then you're putting restrictions on what arm you can have available. That's all I'm trying to do with reasonable gun control." [​IMG] So, if it's not all or none how do we justify the in-between?[​IMG]

  11. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the civilian population to have sufficient arms to overthrough the government if they ignore the Constitution and attempt to create a police state. If we are going to follow the Constitution, the public must have the ability to own the same weapons the government would use against them.

    Obviously the framers of the Constitution never imagined some of the weapons our military has developed. But in this case, it is as stated above, it's all or nothing.

    When the first gun control law passed the SCOTUS test, the government changed from "the right to keep and bear arms" to "where do we draw the line on the level of gun control we enact." It went from the freedom of choice of the American people to whatever the current political regime considers appropriate.

    Edited because I'm too lazy to take typing lessons and screwed up the spelling on a few words.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2003
  12. whoami

    whoami Well-Known Member

    Sorry....this is just way too far out there for me. I'd say anything that would be certified for foreign military sales is fair game. I don't think I'm too keen about seeing something like a Virginia class missle sub, or the F-22 up for sale.....I'd rather not have sensitive/classified systems/packages for sale on the open markets. Aside from that.....fair game......
  13. dairycreek

    dairycreek Well-Known Member

    There is no such thing as "reasonable" gun control!!!

    The antis think that "reasonable" is no private citizen having private weapons. The state controls all of that. Remember NAZI Germany? On the other hand "reasonable" to some means that they can have whatever they want - period. Somewhere in between those two extreme points of view is a place were most Americans (pro or anti) can live. How to get there? Well, if you are pro you must fight like ---- to retain you rights and be vigilant when the antis try to impinge upon them. Good shooting:)
  14. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    It's not about what most Americans want.....


    I don't give a tinkers darn about what most Americans want. I am prepared to die to defend what the constitution says. Which is pretty broad in it's statements about bearing arms.

    We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic and our government and the laws it can impose are limited by the constitution.

  15. Drjones

    Drjones member

    End of story.

    I think FAR too many people have forgotten this very basic premise: The Constitution and BOR was written for the good and protection of THE PEOPLE, NOT the Govt.


    That single point right there is going to change my thinking on a lot of stuff.

    Thank you.
  16. G-Raptor

    G-Raptor Well-Known Member

    One interpretation of "keep and bear arms" might conclude that you would be limited to weapons that you can "bear"; i.e. carry. However, in the modern era, that would logically include Stingers, LAWS, and claymores.

    If the primary intent of the 2am is to allow the citizenry to oppose the government, then "by rights" the citizens should possess arms comparable to those of the government. In colonial times, the militia was expected to arrive bearing their own weapons, but I don't believe that this included field artillery. A militiaman reported for duty with the same arms as any infantryman of the standing army. As I read history, in times of conflict, the government was intended to provide large arms, such as cannons and ships. There was no prohibition against citizens owning the same, it was just a matter of practical reality.

    I'll skip the long explanation, but if I had to draw a line in the sand, Preacherman has picked a good spot to draw it. No crew-served or explosive weapons for civilian use.


    I would include this proviso:

    Civilian use mean ALL civilian use. NO agent (agency) of the government, outside of the military, would be allowed to use or possess any weapon that is not available to the general public. In other words, if the FBI gets a M4 shorty, I want one. If the ATF gets a silenced MP5, I want one. They are not the military.
  17. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member


    There were privately owned cannon and warships in colonial time. While the ordinary citizen for the most part didn't own them, many companies and businesses did. There were quite a few smaller cannon (usually pedestal mounted) and mortars on merchant ships and flatboats of the day.

    So given your criteria, how would you define what's a crew served and what's an individual weapon? M240G from the bipod ok, but if you have the tripod and T&E it's not?

    Arms are arms. The cost of modern weapons will do more then the any law to keep them out of private hands. Not even Bill Gates could buy a big enough Air Force to acheive air superiority over Seattle.

    No prohibition on what you can own, just like the constitution says. That's how we got where we are today, someone decided that "shall not be infringed" didn't mean machine guns, silencers, short barreled shotguns and explosives. Then they decided that it didn't mean semi automatic weapons made after 13 September 1994 that had two or more of a list of evil features. What's next? Where do you stop? In my book the right to keep and bear arms means just what it says....


    BTW where in SW Illinois are you? We might be neighbors :cool:
  18. pax

    pax Well-Known Member

    Where does gun control end?

    With genocide.

    Oh ... you meant from the other direction.

    I dunno. We're a long way from there.


    [During the 20th century] … 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. – R. J. Rummel, Death by Government

    People never believe in volcanoes until the lava actually overtakes them. – George Santayana
  19. Marshall

    Marshall Well-Known Member

    Natedog I don't think it ever ends. It would be pea shooters after that!

    Matter of fact, if we just gave the liberals all the things they wanted in life maybe they would die from boredom because they sure don't have anything else in life to do! Then we start over with no liberals! Ah heck, just shoot em and make it a quick death. ROFL

    Just kidding on the the shoot em thing!
  20. G-Raptor

    G-Raptor Well-Known Member


    I'm in Fairview, about 15 miles from St. Louie.

    As to the other points:

    I know there were privately owned cannons, etc. - there was not prohibition against them. I was just referring to the arms owned by the typical citizen, which were equal to that of the typical soldier.

    As to "crew-served", I meant to exclude weapons that required more than one guy to carry.

    While I do agree on the principal; ie. machine guns, short shotguns, silencers, etc., I beg to differ on one point "arms are not ARMS". Historically, this word "arms" has had two distinct meaning, one referring to "individual weapons" (individual arms) and the other to "weapons of war" (the arms of a nation).

    I believe that the founders were referring to individual arms and not "the arms of the nation" when they wrote the 2am. While we have a right to Keep and Bear Arms, private armies (and their associated "weapons of war") are not allowed.

    Bill Gates may not be able to gain Air Superiority over Seattle, but it is well within his means to maintain a private military force that could devastate many a small country. I don't think the founders intended that as a "right of the people".

    I believe that a distinction between individual arms and "weapons of war" is a valid one and that weapons of war should be limited to the military for the defense of the nation. However, there should be no restrictions on individual arms.

Share This Page