If you could make all the gun laws...

[ganymede]

If you were in charge of making all the laws concerning weapons what would you do? Surely there must be some limit on the type of weapons a person can own, but where do you draw the line? I mean, we can't let people own nuclear bombs right?

what types of weapons would you make legal and where would you draw the line? keep laws as they are? WMD's for all? or somewhere in between?

 

[General Geoff]

None.

The nuke argument is old and tired. Citizens can already buy or make high explosives, mortars, cannons, artillery, etc (with some forms and taxes). Deregulating them wouldn't increase crime. Anyone with the knowledge, materials, and funds to build or procure a nuclear weapon wouldn't be stopped by a law against them anyway.


So, again, none whatsoever.


edit; another way of looking at it is that anything the government has access to, should also be available to a private citizen. The very definition of tyranny is that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I vote for perma banning people who start threads like this, that's the change I would make.

The "nuclear bombs for everyone" and "machine guns sold to toddlers at Wal Mart" stuff should be bannable offenses.

They serve no purpose, they don't help the debate at all, and they are just displays of ignorance about what the Second Amendment really means.

Surely there must be some limit on the type of weapons a person can own

Why? Geoff said it already. People who want to own certain types of weapons are going to do it anyway, legal or not.

What good do laws do other than restrict the law abiding?

It's illegal to fly airplanes into the sides of buildings too.....

 

[jnyork]

All of the above. :banghead:

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In the light of the Constitution, this is a moot question. Considering the Constitution notwithstanding for the sake of discussion, I wouldn't make any guns legal nor would I make any illegal. It isn't necessary to make things legal in a republic, and I don't believe government should make anything illegal that it received the power to possess from the very people it wishes to limit.

In a dictatorship, tyranny, monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy and maybe a democracy, all bets are off. Good luck banning anything in an ochlocracy.

Woody

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

If I could make all the gun laws, I'd make only 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"

 

[X-Rap]

And anything that comes out of todays Parliment of Whores as leglislation has so many pages it takes a appliance dolly to move.
Is there a lesson somewhere here?

 

[searcher451]

The Dark Knight has it right: The Second Amendment still sets the standard. What more needs to be said?

 

[guntech59]

If you were in charge of making all the laws concerning weapons what would you do? Surely there must be some limit on the type of weapons a person can own, but where do you draw the line? I mean, we can't let people own nuclear bombs right?

what types of weapons would you make legal and where would you draw the line? keep laws as they are? WMD's for all? or somewhere in between?

Surely you jest. Go back and read the Constitution and its Amendments (pay close attention to Amendment II).

 

[kda]

And anything that comes out of todays Parliment of Whores as leglislation has so many pages it takes a appliance dolly to move.
Is there a lesson somewhere here?

You nailed it. We must quit re-electing those who so obviously work against the public interests, including our constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[ClayInTX]

I sometimes wonder if our Founding Fathers were prescient. Consider the wording of the Second Amendment:

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.

Notice that it does not say guns, swords, knives, pitchforks, bombs, rockets, or any specific weapon. It says ARMS.

It’s as if they were well aware that the armaments of 1787 might not be the only arms developed in later years.

We Americans have the Constitutional Right to keep and bear ANY weapon. All gun control laws, all weapon control laws of any kind are unconstitutional.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

The only people who should have restrirctions are people who have been convicted of violent crimes. People who obey the law and haven't been convicted of violent felonies should not have laws imposed on them concerning guns, or any other weapons for that matter. I have no use for a machine gun, but I am a law abiding citizen and should be able to own one if I so choose.

 

[SundownRider]

Arms are not the problem. It is the misuse of arms that is the problem. People should be free to own whatever they want as long as they realize they will be held in full responsibility should their actions prove detrimental to an individual or society.

Moot point here, but guns don't shoot by themselves.

 

[CoRoMo]

...perma banning people who start threads like this...

Hee Hee Hee, and +1

No laws
No Permits
No Restrictions
No Regulations
No Fees
No NICS
No Exceptions

 

[zombienerd]

I'd probably keep the background check in place, but I'd relax the list of who is "prohibited" to only include Violent Felons, and those who have been rendered Mentally Incompetent.

I don't believe that someone who has proven themselves capable of harming another for malicious reasons should be allowed firearms, or any other tool that could be used for harm. Then again, "If I were King" one maliciously violent offense would be life without parole, or the death sentence.

Mentally Incompetent people can be just as dangerous, as much as I believe they should be able to defend themselves, it is too great a risk to the public at large.

think that would be the only restriction...

All other restrictions, bans, permits, requirements, fees, checks, etc would be stricken from law.

 

[Pyzon]

The only laws necessary are those that require swift (same day) and final justice to anyone using any weapon against another citizen. Leave the rest of us lawful folks alone.

I don't care if it is a deterrent to others or not, but it makes recidivism a whole lot more difficult.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

i think citizens should only own back powder firearms-

 

[chuckusaret]

The very definition of tyranny is that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

Yes, if it is banned for civilians it should also be banned for the government.

 

[Zoogster]

I'd probably keep the background check in place, but I'd relax the list of who is "prohibited" to only include Violent Felons, and those who have been rendered Mentally Incompetent.

Hmm just those huh? What if someone finds your infatuation with zombies, dehumanized human beings, combined with a love of firearms, and clear statements which shows disregard for laws or rules of society such as ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ in your signature (come and take them, because I refuse to give them up, even if required by law) as a sign of mental illness?

You enjoy dehumanized human beings, probably being shot in fantasy (like your zombie movies or games).
You show a willingness to violate laws of society. (ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ)
And you have a fascination with weapons (firearms)?
Clearly zombienerd's possession of firearms is a threat to the community and the safety of all as he demonstrates signs of severe psychiatric problems.


No I don't believe the above, but I could certainly make a good case before a judge that you should be found mentally unfit and never be allowed to have firearms.
Mental illness could easily be an all encompassing prohibition used to ban specific individuals as desired at any time based on the discretion of those diagnosing. Certainly there is mentally ill people that I don't want to have firearms, but in the interest of liberty sometimes you must have some loose ends.
Freedom is not always perfectly 'safe' and ideal.

 

[zombienerd]

I did not say "mental illness", there are plenty of "mental illnesses" that the person suffering from them can still be considered competent.

EDIT: This is not to say that I disagree with the purpose of your post... I do agree that it may be unfair to some, but you have to agree that there are some people on this earth that are not "by nature" violent people, that should (by reason of mental problems) not be allowed to do many things that most people take for granted.

I don't believe that someone who is mentally disconnected from reality so far as they honestly believe that "God" is telling them to jump off tall buildings because he just gave him the power of flight should be able to own anything that could harm another person. Including firearms, sharp objects, motor vehicles, etc... (This is just one example)

Taking away someones god-given rights is not something that any governmental body should take lightly, but there are cases where it is necessary. The caveat is to make sure that this power cannot be abused, and that the person in question gets a fair chance to defend themselves against the allegations if they believe them to be untrue. It is a slippery slope, but I don't believe that "honestly incompetent" people should be able to own firearms.

 

[BHP FAN]

The Ten Commandments are pretty much all the laws we ever needed,and have yet to be improved on.

 

[zignal_zero]

i've spent A LOT of time enforcing laws created by other people. i've found i really don't like most laws. in fact the only laws i can truly say i agree with are the ones that prohibit someone from DOING something to SOMEONE ELSE that they DON'T WANT them to. u know - an unwanted/unsolicited ACTION.

as far as gun laws go, the 2nd Ammendment was all we ever really needed.

as far as nukes go - please correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't there ever ONLY ONE country that ever used one in an act of aggression? and isn't it the same country trying to determine who should be allowed to have them. it's gun control on a global scale created for the same reasons we are subjected to it on a local level

 

[Zoogster]

Then again, "If I were King" one maliciously violent offense would be life without parole, or the death sentence.

That sounds perfectly reasonable, and a good reason for anyone that even commits something like a robbery or assault (pointing a gun at a threat if it is later determined to have not been justified is a violent felony) to be willing to kill anyone necessary to avoid arrest.

After all if even the most minor of violent crimes carries a life in prison or death sentence, then most of the deterrent of escalation in criminal actions is removed. They might as well murder you or your loved one if they want an object being carried, rather than take it through confrontational robbery.
They want your wife's purse? Why grab it and run, committing a life in prison offense when they can just shoot her or fatally bludgeon her (non firearm) from behind, with a similar punishment.
For that reason why leave any witnesses to any robbery ever committed alive if the robbery carries the same punishment as multiple homicides? Those dead won't be witnesses, and if murder and robbery carry similar punishments, then one option simply has less witnesses.

Most criminals are selfish, and if you remove the deterrent of escalation, more will simply start at the worst level.

 

[zombienerd]

That sounds perfectly reasonable, and a good reason for anyone that even commits something like a robbery or assault (pointing a gun at a threat if it is later determined to have not been justified is a violent felony) to be willing to kill anyone necessary to avoid arrest.

After all if even the most minor of violent crimes carries a life in prison or death sentence, then most of the deterrent of escalation in criminal actions is removed. They might as well murder you or your loved one if they want an object being carried, rather than take it through confrontational robbery.
They want your wife's purse? Why grab it and run, committing a life in prison offense when they can just shoot her, with a similar punishment.
For that reason why leave any witnesses to any robbery ever committed alive if the robbery carries the same punishment as multiple homicides?

I see your point completely. I should have went into more detail on my philosophy.

The key word was Malicious. Being able to prove the Malice would be the caveat to the "one strike you're out" deal... Malice is not easy to prove, but there are some places where it is obvious (Man shoots 18 people in a restaurant, for example)

Now, if there's that "reasonable doubt" that it wasn't malicious, if it was an accident, etc, then the mandatory life sentence obviously wouldn't be on the table.

 

[BluesDancer]

I do agree somewhat with zoogster's original argument here. To add to his argument, I believe that anyone should not be denied the RKBA. We don't deprive violent felons of the right to free speech, nor the right to peacefully assemble, nor the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. What's the difference with RBKA? As far as I'm concerned, you either give a violent felon all (constitutional) rights back or you give none. I didn't know there was an exception in the second amendment which included the nullification of that right if one is a violent felon.

Don't restrict RKBA rights just because their are failures in the justice system. Fight for change within the justice system. What that change is, well, that's debatable - but that still doesn't change the point.

I will also add that restricting firearms for violent felons assumes that they would not be able to get illegal guns or other deadly weapons somewhere else. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make.

They instituted the Brady background check in 87, preventing violent felons from buying guns at a FFL, yet crime dropped in the early 90's. According to 'Freakonomics", there are other reasons for this drop, such as increased police presences, long-term effects of Roe vs. Wade, etc. Regardless of whether or not the authors argument is correct, there are too many additional variables related to crime rates to easily make some type of link. It's clear to me that their is no (easy) causation link between denial of guns to violent felons and changes, in any direction, in the crime rate.

What do you think?