DeepSouth
Random Guy
There is one.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
I'd vote for this "sensible gun law"
- Thread starter Jumping Frog
- Start date
- Status
There is one.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
Bookworm
Member
silencers would merely be courteous And of course used by those with criminal intent, which we already have a huge problem with, as everyone here must admit. Silencers don't place civilians on parity with our military forces. While some urban ranges could be well served using these, there is no need to try to muffle a gunshot for SD situations. We already have a hash of gun laws, and a single bright-line rule serves our people best.
Explosive ammo is more a myth than reality I was thinking more of the problems with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Somalis, amongst others, all of whom seem to have rocket-propelled grenades by their bedsides, for no lawful purpose. Surplus AT-4s, LAW rockets, TOW missiles, etc have no SD value. While the civilians should be on par with military forces, all of those weapons will kill innocent bystanders and cause property damage unless the shooter is properly trained how and where to use them (Back-blast area clear!!). Since the 2nd amendment doesn't come contingent with training, a bright-line rule is again needed.
Full-auto is a fun way to convert money into noise. It's one way for God to tell you that you have too much money. Regardless, good folks don't misuse them, and you can't stop bad guys. You're 100% right. The only way to stop bad guys is to extend the death penalty towards all crimes involving the historical types of banditry (armed robbery, entering a home to harm or rob someone, rape, the killing of someone who has not threatened you, your family or property, etc) and to arm the good guys. What I don't want to see is gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Latin Kings, Crips, or whatever they call themselves with readily available full-auto weapons. If they are unavailable, law-abiding citizens will be on par with the criminals. Think about the impact of full-auto weapons on our society and police forces.
Explosive ammo is more a myth than reality I was thinking more of the problems with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Somalis, amongst others, all of whom seem to have rocket-propelled grenades by their bedsides, for no lawful purpose. Surplus AT-4s, LAW rockets, TOW missiles, etc have no SD value. While the civilians should be on par with military forces, all of those weapons will kill innocent bystanders and cause property damage unless the shooter is properly trained how and where to use them (Back-blast area clear!!). Since the 2nd amendment doesn't come contingent with training, a bright-line rule is again needed.
Full-auto is a fun way to convert money into noise. It's one way for God to tell you that you have too much money. Regardless, good folks don't misuse them, and you can't stop bad guys. You're 100% right. The only way to stop bad guys is to extend the death penalty towards all crimes involving the historical types of banditry (armed robbery, entering a home to harm or rob someone, rape, the killing of someone who has not threatened you, your family or property, etc) and to arm the good guys. What I don't want to see is gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Latin Kings, Crips, or whatever they call themselves with readily available full-auto weapons. If they are unavailable, law-abiding citizens will be on par with the criminals. Think about the impact of full-auto weapons on our society and police forces.
Demitrios
Member
Consider this, yes we're all now allowed to carry and own, but who's to say WHAT we're allowed to carry and own? The military issues sidearms and rifles to infantryman but the selection is obviously a limited one. What happens if they tell me, "Well we gave you a pistol and rifle, now you don't need any of your other ones."?
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
obligation != freedom.
not bad but i like mine better
no felons no crazies can own or live with someone who owns a firearm
oc/cc legal PERIOD unless superseeded by the first statment
throw out '34 '68 and '86
and of course what you own is your choise even if your choise is not to own at all
no felons no crazies can own or live with someone who owns a firearm
oc/cc legal PERIOD unless superseeded by the first statment
throw out '34 '68 and '86
and of course what you own is your choise even if your choise is not to own at all
metallic
Member
Guess you've never fired off a .40 in a confined space without hearing protection. I have, my ears rang for days. I have no desire to actually own a suppressor, but to say that there is no legitimate use for one except by criminals is ludicrous.
Full auto was legal up until 1986, then ownership remained legal but just more selective. There was no rivers of blood in the streets like the antis claim every time it becomes legal to carry concealed somewhere new. Also, you are under the assumption that gangs like MS-13 don't already have full auto already. The funny thing about laws is that only the law-abiding obey them.
Also, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with being the last remaining check on government power. Just like the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, which is the other straw man argument that the antis like to build and then destroy to further encroach on our rights.
I was going to say the same thing as metallic. .45 in a 12'x12' room is going to leave your ears hurting.
Back on topic though, I wouldn't vote for this hypothetical law. Requiring everyone to have guns and get federally-supervised training isn't really my idea of freedom.
Dex Sinister
Member
You're going to let former ATF agents near CHILDREN????
waterhouse
Member
So, just to be clear, your logic is that we shouldn't have suppressors because people with criminal intent (that is, those people who are willing to break the law, for example, your proposed law outlawing suppressors) might use them for criminal purposes? That sounds just like the logic the Brady campaign uses.
Are you aware that suppressors are already legal for regular civilian to own, as are machine guns? Which single bright line rule are you referring to? Are you saying you want the government to make more restrictive gun laws that outlaw suppressors?
As for the "no need to muffle a gunshot for SD purposes" I welcome you to go to an indoor range and shoot without hearing protection. If I ever have to fire shots in my home, I'm hoping I'm using one of my suppressed guns. I'll sacrifice some hearing loss to save my life if I have to, but I'd prefer not to have to.
Flyboy
Member
With which blue-water navy now?
(Not Chinese politics, but a realistic tactical assessment of the posited threat.)
Sorry, I can't get behind the mandated proficiency checks, no matter how much we'd gain for it. The Swiss model is good, but still has its flaws.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
You're just replacing one set of firearms laws with another that is just as onerous. Here are just two examples.
There are a lot of people in this country. How will the program be administered? What is the standard for qualification? If you fail to qualify, do you get to keep your guns?
You would put unelected bureaucrats in charge of this? What would happen under an anti-gun president? Such as the one we have now?
the way I read this is:
Military arms not currently in use by the military (older, outdated models) can be 'donated' to this new program so civilians can buy them, as long as the DCM guy thinks its ok. So all this does is allow military surplus to be somewhat more available to civilians, assuming the DCM is 2A friendly. if he isnt, then there is no military surplus weapons for the public. Not exactly what I would say. Perhaps reword it to where there is no veto, ALL small arms are available for resale. (I am assuming small arms is defined as rifles, shotguns, and handguns?)
As to the silencer question, why shouldnt they be more available to the public? Go to a shooting range, and everyone wears ear protection. A suppressor just takes all that ear protection and moves it from the head of everyone present to the end of the barrels of the firearms. More convenient, and also easier on those who dont have hearing protection. And in a SD shoot, I dont think anyone would have time to put on ear protection, much less want to add the tactical disadvantage of not being able to hear anything
I swear some of you guys are impossible... you whine about all the gun regulation but just proved here that if all of the current regulations were traded for the requirement to prove yourself competent each year (ahem, a day at the range) it is still too much. Seriously... Oh, and full autos and silencers are too scary for the general population?
I am sorry but this is rediculous. The purist idea of let me do what the hell I want to do without anyone saying anything about it is a naive dream.. if I could trade the requirement for backround checks, class III licensing, CCP, the inability to open carry for a required day at the range once a year or every other year, I would do so in a heart beat...
I am sorry but this is rediculous. The purist idea of let me do what the hell I want to do without anyone saying anything about it is a naive dream.. if I could trade the requirement for backround checks, class III licensing, CCP, the inability to open carry for a required day at the range once a year or every other year, I would do so in a heart beat...
Flyboy
Member
Either that, or it's a principled stand against government-enforced servitude, even if the demanded action is something we would do anyway. It's not just about us--it's about the imposition on others who might not want to shoot. The government has no right to compel action of any free man--it's right there in that word "free."
We're not saying it wouldn't be convenient, just that it would be selling out our devotion to freedom for our own convenience.
Principles are what you do when the choice is hard.
We're not saying it wouldn't be convenient, just that it would be selling out our devotion to freedom for our own convenience.
Principles are what you do when the choice is hard.
- Status
