If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

[average_shooter]

I believe it should be worded somehow that any arm legal for use by any level of domestic law enforcement should be legal for private ownership, no ifs ands or buts. If the military were EVER for ANY reason allowed to enforce any laws domestically then anything the military uses would be legal.

You know what, I actually like this idea. At least initially I must say this sounds pretty good.

If my local SWAT team wants to play with APC's and MP-5's then I get to play with my own too. If they don't want the "civilians" to own APC's or MP-5's then they don't get them either.

One of my usual rebuttals to people saying mere civilians should hand in our guns is that the cops should do so first, lead by example.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

That's kind of cute, jackdanson. Is the idea that bank robbers should get a level playing field in a firefight with SWAT?

I don't disagree with your proposal, but the implicit justifications can seem sort of ... funny.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JohnnyDollar: "Here are some facts on plane hijackings.
The first U.S.plane hi-jacking incident occurred on May1,1961.They were rare until 1967: http://www.answers.com/topic/hijacking-airplane

Thanks for the link. It's a pretty short article, but generally correct. However, it understates the problem a bit. As noted in the article, according to most sources the first documented skyjacking took place in 1931 in Peru, and skyjackings were common in Central and South America for decades. China and much of Asia, similarly. European skyjackings were somewhat rarer in the early and middle 20th century, except for some hushed up stuff that happened with some German-originating flights before and during WWII. Plus whatever really happened aboard the Hindenburg. Then there's all the funny stuff that happened at the end of WWII, if that counts.

The article misses some stuff that happened in the USA before 1961. But yeah, in America, the worst of it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

"Fly me to Havana!" - The Grass Roots

 

[Golden Hound]

Based on what I see in today's high schools, god help us all if they get to pack handguns, hell, most of them would probably shoot themselves anyway, because they are ignorant of safe gun handling.

An 18 year old in the Army, has a load of training, before he gets deployed with an M-16. They don't just hand it to'em and say "here, shoot this thing".

A few things about this "under 21 is too young for a handgun" stuff:

1. When you say that "most" teenagers are reckless, dangerous, etc - which may or may not be true (I don't think it is, but whatever) I am nearly certain that what you are really talking about are teenage MALES. You're forgetting an entire 50 percent of the under-21-but-over-18 demographic. Ask nearly anyone - young women in their late teens are typically MUCH better behaved and more mature than males of the same age. They're also at a much higher risk of rape. Why deny them the right of self protection?

2. In my opinion this is a matter of applying the law consistently more than a question of age vs. maturity. You can throw out personal anecdotes all day long but someone over the age of eighteen is an ADULT under the law and that is all there is to it.

The law - the Constitution of the United States - must equally apply to ALL adults.

Either 21 should be the age of majority, or 18 year olds should be accorded ALL the rights of all other adults, period.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Goldenhound, do you support repeal of all laws based on age for those attaining majority?

These would include, but not be limited to, age limits for election to Congress and the Presidency, age limits for selective service registration, age limits for Army service, age limits for social security eligibility, age limits for school attendance, et cetera.

 

[Titan6]

ok. I get it you are just a statist who is in love with regulation,trusts the government more than the people, makes stuff up to support your position and when questioned says the other person is wrong without providing any proof.

Very pro-gun in a John Kerry sort of way. Good luck that with that.

 

[wjustinen]

For 40 + years ...

:banghead::banghead::banghead:I've been trying to figure out why some firearms owners are comfortable with infringements on their rights, in the vain hope that some "bad guy" my be prevented from doing something bad. The second ammendment was designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

The level of protection "shall not be infringed" is greater than that provided for any other right. The others may be subject to "reasonable restriction."

There is nothing "reasonable" about government messing with your ability to defend yourself, family, neighbors, or country.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

That's hilarious, Titan6.

I'm the biggest gun nut I know, in a state I love full of gun nuts. I make a living fighting for Constitutional rights and keeping people out of prison. I occupy several paid or volunteer civic positions in which I fight for liberty and justice in the local government setting. But in your fevered imagination I am a "statist."

What exactly have you ever done to defend liberty against statism, other than vote in elections?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

justinen: "The level of protection "shall not be infringed" is greater than that provided for any other right. The others may be subject to "reasonable restriction."

How about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ?

"Congress shall make no law respecting" is stronger than "shall not be infringed." Both are pretty good, though.

 

[Golden Hound]

Goldenhound, do you support repeal of all laws based on age for those attaining majority?

These would include, but not be limited to, age limits for election to Congress and the Presidency, age limits for selective service registration, age limits for Army service, age limits for social security eligibility, age limits for school attendance, et cetera.

I believe that it is in the Bill of Rights (second in order, suggesting it to be rather high priority) that Americans be allowed to keep and bear arms and that this not be infringed. I think it should definitely apply to everyone over the age of majority.

Being able to carry and purchase a handgun is directly tied to one's own safety and well-being in the here and now, much more so than social security, being elected to Congress, or whatever.

Say a 20 year old woman is being stalked by (pick 1 - an abusive ex-boyfriend, an abusive stepfather, a random creep or pervert, whatever) - she really should be denied the right to carry because of that ONE extra year?

You have got to be kidding me.

The idea that you should have to be 21 to buy a handgun because "most" people under 21 are reckless and dangerous is just not logical at all.

Here's an undisputed fact - non-whites are more likely to commit crimes than whites. Look at any police blotter in a major city, or hell, just browse America's Most Wanted website and see the hordes of blacks and Hispanics. Non-whites are, quite simply, more statistically likely to be involved in crime.

Does this mean that you should have to be white to buy a handgun?

NO!!!

 

[Duke of Doubt]

It's true that 21 is sort of arbitrary, and 20 or 22 would be as logical or illogical. I picked it because it is the current law, that's all. If you want it to be 20, I have no problem with that. But it has to be some age, and it ain't gonna be 5 or 6.

 

[nachosgrande]

I equate it to driving a car. If you know what you're doing, then by all means own whatever you want, whenever you want. However, if you don't know what you are doing, you are a danger to yourselves and others.

 

[expvideo]

That's kind of cute, jackdanson. Is the idea that bank robbers should get a level playing field in a firefight with SWAT?

I don't disagree with your proposal, but the implicit justifications can seem sort of ... funny.

It's illegal to rob banks. Bank robbers don't care. They also don't care about the smaller crimes they commit, like weapon violations. If they were concerned with the law, they wouldn't be robbing the bank. Placing restrictions on criminals who don't obtain their guns legally anyway (remember, they don't care about the law) is redundant, and only affects the people who were planning on obeying the law in the first place (i.e. not bank robbers).

 

[HeavenlySword]

Duke, you constantly assume by loosening gun laws it will allow criminals to buy heavier weaponry.

 

[Dark_Harvest]

haven't read the entire thread, and if someone before me has spoken up, then i applaud you sir.


on the first page of this fine thread, the "duke of doubt" stood up and proved his loyalty to king george.

we all know what happened shortly thereafter.


i call your "reasonable restrictions" and i raise you one "revolution."

*****
...okay, read back a few posts and saw this travesty:

"I make a living fighting for Constitutional rights and keeping people out of prison. I occupy several paid or volunteer civic positions in which I fight for liberty and justice in the local government setting. But in your fevered imagination I am a "statist."



Seriously... "Duke..." in no-one's fevered imagination are you anything. We just quote what you say. You said it. We merely repeat it with emphasis added.


And if you "fight" for "constitutional rights" then i pray to God that i never need you to "occupy several paid positions" to "fight for liberty and justice in" my "local government setting."

Vultures "fight" for their "constitutional right" to pick corpses clean. Doesn't mean your occupation is an acceptable part of my civilization. Buzz off.

 

[qwert65]

MachIVshooter I suggested almost the exact same thing

 

[Duke of Doubt]

DarkHarvest: "Seriously... "Duke..." in no-one's fevered imagination are you anything. We just quote what you say. You said it. We merely repeat it with emphasis added."

I don't mind being quoted. I do mind being called things I am not.

"And if you "fight" for "constitutional rights" then i pray to God that i never need you to "occupy several paid positions" to "fight for liberty and justice in" my "local government setting."

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Vultures "fight" for their "constitutional right" to pick corpses clean. Doesn't mean your occupation is an acceptable part of my civilization. Buzz off.

Your civilization? How do you have a civilization without rule of law? You and people like you flatter yourself that you will solve all your problems with a gun, but when somebody shoots one of your relatives over a civil or family dispute, your outrage can be heard across the county. Try running even a small town with no laws and no lawyers. Heck, I bet you aren't even the big cheese of your trailer park.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's true that 21 is sort of arbitrary, and 20 or 22 would be as logical or illogical. I picked it because it is the current law, that's all. If you want it to be 20, I have no problem with that. But it has to be some age, and it ain't gonna be 5 or 6.

Why not? In the earlier half of the last century, there were no laws governing the minimum age for purchase and possession of a firearm. None. My grandfather carried a .22 rifle on his way to and from school, and kept it in the corner of the classroom during school hours, alongside all the other kid's rifles. We're talking about youths aged from 6 to 16.

Unbelievably, despite a complete lack of controls, 8 years olds were't gunning each other down in the streets. Go figure.

I had access to firearms from .22's to hi powered rifles and magnum revolvers from as early on as I can remember. My father never kept them under lock and key. Instead, who chose to instill a set of morals in us kids that were a far more effective deterrent regarding the misuse of weapons than any text in a book of statutes.

Believing that a 6 year old cannot handle a firearm safely and responsibly is buying into the nanny state doctrine. They can, have and do.

I believe in no age restrictions for firearm possession. Eliminating the age requirement is not going to automatically arm the hordes of second graders in this country. Young kids don't buy their own guns. They can't afford them. This means that the parent buys the gun for the kid, and that generally means that the parent is also a shooter and, as such, can teach the juvenile how to safely and responsibly handle a potentially deadly impliment.

As far as teenagers, well, we all know how effective the minimum age of 18/21 has been in keeping pistols out of the hands of 15 year old gangbangers. So why should the good kids have to suffer?

Oh, FYI, since you claim to be a scholar, surely you know already that there is no federal law setting forth a minimum age regarding private party purchase and possession of a long gun. If a six year old can afford a rifle, he can legally buy one from a non-licensee. Of course, some states do have regs, but my point remains.

 

[Titan6]

Ahh what do I do to support the COTUS? Other than vote that is?

- I pray very hard, often that our leaders will exercise wise judgment and not break the law in their dealings

- contact my elected leaders when important issues are coming up and advise them what my views are

- I send money to the (few) pro-constitution candidates and office holders to assist them with their campaigns

- post snarky comments on the internet on various websites

- from time to time take an oath to support and defend the COTUS and take that oath seriously

- educate my children about the humility and divinity of all men and women

I probably do more but this is all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

MachIV: "Why not? In the earlier half of the last century, there were no laws governing the minimum age for purchase and possession of a firearm. None. My grandfather carried a .22 rifle on his way to and from school, and kept it in the corner of the classroom during school hours, alongside all the other kid's rifles. We're talking about youths aged from 6 to 16."

He wasn't 5 or 6.

Unbelievably, despite a complete lack of controls, 8 years olds were't gunning each other down in the streets. Go figure.

Actually, on occasion they did. And do today.

I had access to firearms from .22's to hi powered rifles and magnum revolvers from as early on as I can remember. My father never kept them under lock and key. Instead, who chose to instill a set of morals in us kids that were a far more effective deterrent regarding the misuse of weapons than any text in a book of statutes.

Yes, but you did not go to the store and buy one at 6.

Believing that a 6 year old cannot handle a firearm safely and responsibly is buying into the nanny state doctrine. They can, have and do.

A six year old is not capable properly of carrying a .44 magnum in his school backpack. More to the point, he is not legally responsible for his actions, so he could shoot his teacher and emerge from the law unscathed. Another reason not to arm a 6 year old.

I believe in no age restrictions for firearm possession. Eliminating the age requirement is not going to automatically arm the hordes of second graders in this country. Young kids don't buy their own guns. They can't afford them. This means that the parent buys the gun for the kid, and that generally means that the parent is also a shooter and, as such, can teach the juvenile how to safely and responsibly handle a potentially deadly impliment.

So you advocate straw purchases of handguns for six year olds? What is this, "Candid Camera"?

As far as teenagers, well, we all know how effective the minimum age of 18/21 has been in keeping pistols out of the hands of 15 year old gangbangers. So why should the good kids have to suffer?

And we all know how effective the laws against drug trafficking in schools have been. Should we just legalize meth and be done with it?

Oh, FYI, since you claim to be a scholar, surely you know already that there is no federal law setting forth a minimum age regarding private party purchase and possession of a long gun. If a six year old can afford a rifle, he can legally buy one from a non-licensee. Of course, some states do have regs, but my point remains.

No, it doesn't remain. He cannot legally buy one even from a private transferor.

 

[Flyboy]

We're talking about youths aged from 6 to 16."

He wasn't 5 or 6.

Hrm. "Six to sixteen." I'm pretty sure the "six" at the low end of his scale is included in "five or six." Is it your reading comprehension or your math comprehension that's failing here?

Unbelievably, despite a complete lack of controls, 8 years olds were't gunning each other down in the streets. Go figure.

Actually, on occasion they did. And do today.

This is correct. In fact, it's even more correct than you realize: school shootings are happening at very nearly the same rate as they have for ages, even prior to the current laws. Please explain how the laws you so cherish have improved the situation. Use facts and data, please, not the particular truthiness that makes you feel "comfortable."

More to the point, he is not legally responsible for his actions, so he could shoot his teacher and emerge from the law unscathed. Another reason not to arm a 6 year old.

Unscathed, you say? I'll grant you that they were 11 and 13, not 6, but the shooters at Jonesboro were among the youngest ever charged with murder. They were convicted. There have been others.

Frankly, I'd be interested in the number of six-year-old murderers we've had. Remember that "murder" is a crime of intent, so you need to prove a mens rea. If you can provide some (credible) citations of 6-year-olds literally getting away with murder, we can discuss this; otherwise, it's just breathless babble the likes of which we see from the Brady bunch.

No, it doesn't remain. He cannot legally buy one even from a private transferor.

This one is easy. Since you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide citations, and since you're making a claim about statutory law, you should be able to cite the law in question. Go ahead, make us proud.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In fact, in the days when kids could buy guns (I bought a 7mm Mauser through the mail at 14), our crime rate was much lower than it is today.

 

[BrandonBowers]

Duke of Doubt

I'm the biggest gun nut I know, in a state I love full of gun nuts. I make a living fighting for Constitutional rights and keeping people out of prison. I occupy several paid or volunteer civic positions in which I fight for liberty and justice in the local government setting. But in your fevered imagination I am a "statist."

That's because you are advocating a statist position with all the laws you seem to FEEL a need to have in place around weapons. I'd use fascist but there is Godwin's law and the need to be civil about this.

Also your examples have been rather weak as most of the situations you have descibed are not covered by 'gun laws' but are covered by laws related to assault with a deadly weapon and other statutes.

 

[expvideo]

In fact, in the days when kids could buy guns (I bought a 7mm Mauser through the mail at 14), our crime rate was much lower than it is today.

But since guns do not = crime, I think that is irrelevant. Modern crime rates have a lot more to do with denser populations and a more violent culture, as well as desensitization of the younger generations to violent acts, and a society that caters more toward criminals than it did back then.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

BrandonBowers: "That's because you are advocating a statist position with all the laws you seem to FEEL a need to have in place around weapons. I'd use fascist but there is Godwin's law and the need to be civil about this."

My position is not statist, unless you mean that any restrictions at all are statist. Compared to the mainstream, I am a libertarian gun nut.

I'd rather be called a fascist than a statist. At least the fascists are the "bad boys" and get to wear cool outfits. In the immortal words of poet and author Sylvia Plath, "Every woman adores a fascist."