Gunnerpalace
Member
Just like what one poster said you should not own nukes,bio,chem,or ultra explosives as the 4 rules cannot be properly followed.
Let's stir the pot....what is the limit for gun rights (typology of gun)???
- Thread starter saturno_v
- Start date
- Status
Kind of Blued
Member
I don't want the government to have anything I can't have. Why? Because the government breaks the law on a regular basis while I have lived my whole life as a law-abiding citizen.
As far as needing more powerful weapons for the defense of our country, I think our country is most likely to need to defend itself from its own government, so that defeats the purpose.
In regard to using those weapons to defend against foreign enemies, I'd rather a machine incapable of greed, prejudice, and money be in charge of that.
But then we all get blasted by SkyNet.
As far as needing more powerful weapons for the defense of our country, I think our country is most likely to need to defend itself from its own government, so that defeats the purpose.
In regard to using those weapons to defend against foreign enemies, I'd rather a machine incapable of greed, prejudice, and money be in charge of that.
But then we all get blasted by SkyNet.
coelacanth
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 455
saturno_V - nobody is forgetting any details in this
discussion, important or otherwise. If you think the weapons and avionics to make an F-4 Phantom a fully operational warbird are unavailable then you haven't been paying attention. There is an enormous black market for nearly everything weapons related. As to whether there is a practical limit to what a citizen or group of citizens can own and operate the answer is no.
discussion, important or otherwise. If you think the weapons and avionics to make an F-4 Phantom a fully operational warbird are unavailable then you haven't been paying attention. There is an enormous black market for nearly everything weapons related. As to whether there is a practical limit to what a citizen or group of citizens can own and operate the answer is no.
If you think we need to ban nukes, think about this:
-Who the HECK is going to give you home owner's insurance?
-Who the HECK is going to sell you the materials to make it?
-Who the HECK is going to give THEM insurance to run such a business, considering the lawsuit that'll happen if something goes bad?
-WHERE in the world are you going to find a range big enough to shoot off a nuke on the Fourth of July, without having to worry about not just blast, but long range fallout? If you set one off, and I get just a few more clicks on my Geiger counter, I can see a VERY expensive lawsuit in your future.
Not even Bill Gates will want a toy he can't play with, even if he can afford it. And that's provided the nuclear power company will sell the plutonium, the explosives company the explosives, and the electronics company that makes the detonators.
I look at this from the four rules point of view. Beyond a few thousand pounds, you can't follow the rules:
#1: Know your target and what's behind it. This includes knowing what's in the blast radius, or where the chemicals/etc. will end up. You can't do this, and will be liable for everything. The people that sell you this stuff will also be liable, and will not sell you the materials. Poof, problem solved.
#2: Keep your finger off the trigger. Significantly harder to do with explosives that are less stable than primers and powder, or are inherently dangerous(radioactives and bio and chemicals).
#3: Treat all guns as if they are loaded. If the RPG, or arty shell, or whatever blows up, what happens? You keep your muzzle pointed safe in case something happens, this is much harder to do with a mass destructive agent, and only slightly easier with lesser explosives. The military has a variety of limits on how much ammo can be stored in one place, and there are civilian limits as well, to make sure that any inadvertent explosion only does limited damage.
These limits also apply to civilian uses. I'd certainly hope that the cops would drag the neighbor away if he just had a pile of rockets in his basement, that's a hazard plain and simple. There should be exceptions so that you can say take a few grenades to the range to mess with, but zoning, DOT limits, etc. will prevent anyone from storing dangerous amounts of materials, and licensing and such will prevent situations with stuff like radioactive materials and bio agents. Such things pose an unacceptable risk to be given to just anybody, and the gov is well within its powers to regulate their storage, transportation and use. Again, you fill these demands, show you can store those RPGs properly, etc., and there's no reason not to let you have them. I don't State Farm will insure your house if there's an igloo out back though, and will Geico cover the howitzer?
Beyond this, there's practicality. I can haul around a few M2s, RPGs, a howitzer or even a Stinger or Javelin. You quickly reach the point though, where there's little point in having it. It's too expensive to shoot on a regular basis, or too big, or whatever.
-Who the HECK is going to give you home owner's insurance?
-Who the HECK is going to sell you the materials to make it?
-Who the HECK is going to give THEM insurance to run such a business, considering the lawsuit that'll happen if something goes bad?
-WHERE in the world are you going to find a range big enough to shoot off a nuke on the Fourth of July, without having to worry about not just blast, but long range fallout? If you set one off, and I get just a few more clicks on my Geiger counter, I can see a VERY expensive lawsuit in your future.
Not even Bill Gates will want a toy he can't play with, even if he can afford it. And that's provided the nuclear power company will sell the plutonium, the explosives company the explosives, and the electronics company that makes the detonators.
I look at this from the four rules point of view. Beyond a few thousand pounds, you can't follow the rules:
#1: Know your target and what's behind it. This includes knowing what's in the blast radius, or where the chemicals/etc. will end up. You can't do this, and will be liable for everything. The people that sell you this stuff will also be liable, and will not sell you the materials. Poof, problem solved.
#2: Keep your finger off the trigger. Significantly harder to do with explosives that are less stable than primers and powder, or are inherently dangerous(radioactives and bio and chemicals).
#3: Treat all guns as if they are loaded. If the RPG, or arty shell, or whatever blows up, what happens? You keep your muzzle pointed safe in case something happens, this is much harder to do with a mass destructive agent, and only slightly easier with lesser explosives. The military has a variety of limits on how much ammo can be stored in one place, and there are civilian limits as well, to make sure that any inadvertent explosion only does limited damage.
These limits also apply to civilian uses. I'd certainly hope that the cops would drag the neighbor away if he just had a pile of rockets in his basement, that's a hazard plain and simple. There should be exceptions so that you can say take a few grenades to the range to mess with, but zoning, DOT limits, etc. will prevent anyone from storing dangerous amounts of materials, and licensing and such will prevent situations with stuff like radioactive materials and bio agents. Such things pose an unacceptable risk to be given to just anybody, and the gov is well within its powers to regulate their storage, transportation and use. Again, you fill these demands, show you can store those RPGs properly, etc., and there's no reason not to let you have them. I don't State Farm will insure your house if there's an igloo out back though, and will Geico cover the howitzer?
Beyond this, there's practicality. I can haul around a few M2s, RPGs, a howitzer or even a Stinger or Javelin. You quickly reach the point though, where there's little point in having it. It's too expensive to shoot on a regular basis, or too big, or whatever.
Dumpster Baby
Member
I got flamed REAL GOOD at ar15.com over my opinions on this subject. I and everyone else envision a world where we can just drop in to our local gun store, or hardware store, or Wal-Mart, and buy any kind of automatic weapon we want, like a $75 Sten or a $150 M16 or a $200 M249 machine gun. Or a grenade launcher, RPG, mortar, or TOW missile. Wouldn't that be cool?
The problem is, if WE mainstream folk can do that, then so can all of the MILLIONS of habitual criminals and mentally disturbed folks we have. We don't have a homogeneous population all thinking, believing, and acting pretty much the same way. We're not Switzerland or Israel, and a machine gun or grenade launcher in EVERY closet cannot work here.
The more fanatical gun rights believers demand 100% freedom from gun laws, no exceptions at all for any reason, period. This ignores reality. Reality sucks big time.
I would dearly love to be able to order handguns out of a magazine ad like we used to and have it shipped to my house. I would dearly love to buy a submachine gun for $100 no questions asked. And so on. Unfortunately, if those conditions existed here the gang bangers and pro gangstas would be able to convert their considerable drug earnings into arsenals that would awe the Springfield Armory Museum.
I can't imagine trying to live in a Mad Max world in which ANY and ALL criminal types and crazies roamed around armed better than the Marines. The gun rights extremists (my definition) conveniently ignore the brutal reality of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who basically hate the traditional American way of life running around with ANY and ALL kinds of automatic weapons and destructive devices dangling off them.
I would like to see about 95% of the existing gun laws and import bans dropped. I can't convince myself to drop intense background checks and balances on the purchase of machine guns and destructive devices. I instinctive feel the same way as the gun rights extremists, but like I said, I can't imagine trying to live in a Mad Max war zone where EVERY knuckle dragging dimwit that wants to be the Emperor Of The Gangstas is spraying automatic fire at will and launching RPG's at their rivals.
We don't give children 100% freedom on anything because children are basically savages until they learn how to be civilized. We don't and can't give everyone 100% freedom on just about any subject. Why should something as dangerous and destructive as machine guns and grenade launchers be any different?
Flame away, I'm used to it.
The problem is, if WE mainstream folk can do that, then so can all of the MILLIONS of habitual criminals and mentally disturbed folks we have. We don't have a homogeneous population all thinking, believing, and acting pretty much the same way. We're not Switzerland or Israel, and a machine gun or grenade launcher in EVERY closet cannot work here.
The more fanatical gun rights believers demand 100% freedom from gun laws, no exceptions at all for any reason, period. This ignores reality. Reality sucks big time.
I would dearly love to be able to order handguns out of a magazine ad like we used to and have it shipped to my house. I would dearly love to buy a submachine gun for $100 no questions asked. And so on. Unfortunately, if those conditions existed here the gang bangers and pro gangstas would be able to convert their considerable drug earnings into arsenals that would awe the Springfield Armory Museum.
I can't imagine trying to live in a Mad Max world in which ANY and ALL criminal types and crazies roamed around armed better than the Marines. The gun rights extremists (my definition) conveniently ignore the brutal reality of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who basically hate the traditional American way of life running around with ANY and ALL kinds of automatic weapons and destructive devices dangling off them.
I would like to see about 95% of the existing gun laws and import bans dropped. I can't convince myself to drop intense background checks and balances on the purchase of machine guns and destructive devices. I instinctive feel the same way as the gun rights extremists, but like I said, I can't imagine trying to live in a Mad Max war zone where EVERY knuckle dragging dimwit that wants to be the Emperor Of The Gangstas is spraying automatic fire at will and launching RPG's at their rivals.
We don't give children 100% freedom on anything because children are basically savages until they learn how to be civilized. We don't and can't give everyone 100% freedom on just about any subject. Why should something as dangerous and destructive as machine guns and grenade launchers be any different?
Flame away, I'm used to it.
When it comes to what can be owned, I do believe there's a limit. As an example, I don't believe that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) should be owned by individuals and wish they didn't exist at all. How is the decision made? That's where the problem starts. If you you use "any weapon used for personal defense" as the guide line there are those that would say that can be any weapon. My belief, cut it off at small arms up to, and including the .50 BMG.
OMGWTFBBQ
Member
I doubt it for the same reason why crimes committed using "assault weapons" are so rare. Pistols, being both cheap themselves and having cheaper ammo, as well as being easy to conceal, will probably always be the criminal's weapon of choice.
woodybrighton
member
heavy machine guns anti tank weapons crack on.
there expensive and man portable guided missiles are very disappointing to fire
$24000 for a Milan round.
now sten guns should be under some form of control.
woodysstenguns.com buy traditional English craftsmanship (sic) $250 including 5 mags bayonet and webbing
and that would be massive profiteering
fine for responsible gun owners. you really want to put fully automatic short barreled weapons in the hands of the untrained and clueless.
Now personally an M1 is a much finer tool to indulge in mass slaughter with but any sort of smg is ideal for close quarter mayhem weather deliberate or accidently.
I like the Norwegian attitude you can own a machine gun if you want but most
people don't want to
there expensive and man portable guided missiles are very disappointing to fire
$24000 for a Milan round.
now sten guns should be under some form of control.
woodysstenguns.com buy traditional English craftsmanship (sic) $250 including 5 mags bayonet and webbing
and that would be massive profiteering
fine for responsible gun owners. you really want to put fully automatic short barreled weapons in the hands of the untrained and clueless.
Now personally an M1 is a much finer tool to indulge in mass slaughter with but any sort of smg is ideal for close quarter mayhem weather deliberate or accidently.
I like the Norwegian attitude you can own a machine gun if you want but most
people don't want to
Ed Ames
Member
Umm... not FAA really.
The FAA says you must have an airworthiness certificate to fly a plane and the military is exempt from that FAA requirement. In order to get an airworthiness certificate on an ex-mil plane it must be inspected.
The FAA prefers that, because the DOD wants surplus planes demilled and demilling can cause significant changes, you demill before applying for an airworthiness certificate. Not a requirement.
Demilling isn't even universal... the DOD doesn't want all planes demilled. Some are sold to other countries all the time in full military configuration. Others are sold to private companies for R&D or other purposes with full weaponry intact. Once outside of military hands there is a chance that the planes can be sold, full weaponry intact, to US citizens. The FAA doesn't care.
As far as the FAA is concerned you can shoot, fire rockets, drop bombs, or do anything else you want in your airplane as long as you do it safely. There are quite a few people with privately owned planes with functional bomb releases, rocket launchers, guns, etc legally flying around.
Our friends at the BATFE control the importation of foreign military aircraft with weaponry intact. They make it a PITA so most importers choose to demil for importation. That, again, has nothing to do with the FAA.
Drifting away from the details... not only should all levels of weaponry be legal, it is the responsibility of wealthy individuals in the USA to buy high grade weaponry in order to defend the nation if there is an attack. When this nation started it was expected that a reasonably prosperous man would own cannon, guns, bombs, and more. Merchant vessels all carried cannon as well.
ZeSpectre
Member
If an AD/ND, or an intentional terrorist use is going to wipe out most of a medium sized city in one shot it should probably be on a restricted list (and that means civilians AND .GOV).
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Just listen to your self for a moment. If your really believe this, then you must believe all the Brady "blood in the streets" nonsence, too. Or you've seen too many James Bond movies.
Freedom is not without danger or risk. However, the risks are not cutailed by wide spread reducution of freedom. General security is increased by greater freedom.
Now it appears you are just trolling. You are entitled to your opinion. But it carries very little credibility when it is backed by nothing more than hyperbole and speculation that is contrary to hard facts.
If you're not trolling, then try searching for prior discussions of this topic instead of just spouting off so that thoughtful responses are used for nothing more than your present amusment.
Mikee Loxxer
Member
The second amendment is clearly a provision to prohibit the government from denying people the right to keep and bear militia weapons (meaning personal arms, the weapons issued to individual soldiers). Nuclear Weapons and other weapons systems that require a significant organization to field and use are not militia weapons. At least that's my take on it.
ColinthePilot
Member
Aside from the comments already made on this one, now your starting to leave the realm of Constitutional Rights and starting to enter the National Security threat arena.
Many of the weapons you've been talking about (F-22's, nukes, missiles) etc still have parts or specs that are classified so the engineers in China can't reverse engineer our toys and use them against us.
I don't see any reason for average citizens to need RPGs or Stinger missiles or other high explosives, but if you can afford one, and you have a safe place to shoot it, be my guest.
As for NFA guns, I should be able to walk in to Wal Mart, swipe my debit card, and walk out with whatever I want. Maybe make a law that if you can carry it out of the store, you can buy it. Or maybe one that says civilians may own weapons that shoot bullets, but not missiles, grenades, banana bombs, etc.
I draw the line when something goes bang and takes out lots of stuff that was not the intended target, not through accident, malfunction or poor aim but through the amount of damage and blast radius.
So nukes and biological weapons are out.
Other then that if you can afford it, hire a crew for it, and safely operate it go for it. Remember in Colonial times that the Colonial equivalent of battleships were owned and operated by civilians.
So nukes and biological weapons are out.
Other then that if you can afford it, hire a crew for it, and safely operate it go for it. Remember in Colonial times that the Colonial equivalent of battleships were owned and operated by civilians.
Dumpster Baby
Member
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about getting flamed.
Nobody believes that substantial sections of our cities could become inaccessible war zones that only the military could enter with armor and air support. Everywhere I go in MY city I see countless zombie drones that think of nothing more than their next score, their next victim, their next stolen loot. I'm sick to death of always having to look over my shoulder for the closest baggy pants, droopy drawers, hoodie wearing gangsta wannabes giving me the eye. I can't imagine a world where millions of those savages can buy any kind of heavy duty bullet hose they want. Now they're using handguns and occasional rifles and shotguns for their gang wars and drive by's but I sincerely believe that would change drastically if they could shuffle into any gun store and buy a MAC-10 or Uzi or M16 cheaply like everyone else wants to.
I firmly believe that 100% total gun freedom would have very deadly consequences, Unintended Consequences. You simply cannot ignore millions of people raised in subcultures that are very hostile to the traditional American way of life. They are plenty destructive now, and could only get much worse if really serious firepower was readily available no questions asked, no restrictions, no limits. Unintended Consequences.
I don't want to have to shoot my way into the grocery store and shoot my way back home again.
X Ed Ames
I do not know all the fine details about all the rules and regulations to "civilize" a military plane (that's why I made an "umbrella" statement about the FAA) but I will gladly ask to people that I know very well and work in a related field which they told me clearly that the chance for you to buy an F-4 with sparrows and sidewinders are NIL, nada, zip....you said someone own a plane with functional missiles release ramps and rocket launcher?? I do not know about that but maybe the launcher or ramp release are allowed but NOT the missiles or rockets itself...
About being a black market for missiles, well there is a black market for everything including nukes, that doesn't mean is legal..
To support Dumpster guy
I have been in Sierra leone, one of these country where you can buy for few bucks an AK-47 off the street and you won't believe how dangerous that country is (even for other reasons too I admit)...
I do not know all the fine details about all the rules and regulations to "civilize" a military plane (that's why I made an "umbrella" statement about the FAA) but I will gladly ask to people that I know very well and work in a related field which they told me clearly that the chance for you to buy an F-4 with sparrows and sidewinders are NIL, nada, zip....you said someone own a plane with functional missiles release ramps and rocket launcher?? I do not know about that but maybe the launcher or ramp release are allowed but NOT the missiles or rockets itself...
About being a black market for missiles, well there is a black market for everything including nukes, that doesn't mean is legal..
To support Dumpster guy
I have been in Sierra leone, one of these country where you can buy for few bucks an AK-47 off the street and you won't believe how dangerous that country is (even for other reasons too I admit)...
par0thead151
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 78
BMG belt feds useless?
geesh why does our mil have them EVERYWHERE then in Iraq and Afghanistan?
maybe because they are very lethal and accurate!
when shooting at a vehicle approaching you, would you rather have a 7.62/5.56 round or a 50 BMG round?
how about hitting hardened targets like inside a house with concrete walls?
the BMG is far from useless, not to mention its range of lethality
geesh why does our mil have them EVERYWHERE then in Iraq and Afghanistan?
maybe because they are very lethal and accurate!
when shooting at a vehicle approaching you, would you rather have a 7.62/5.56 round or a 50 BMG round?
how about hitting hardened targets like inside a house with concrete walls?
the BMG is far from useless, not to mention its range of lethality
Ed Ames
Member
The chances of you *importing* or buying from the DOD a fully equipped F-4 are nil, but that has nothing to do with the FAA requiring they be demilled.
If a contractor (especially one with a manufacturing FFL) can convince the DOD they need a fully equipped F-16 for training, demonstration, or development the DOD can sell it, the contractor can operate it (including blazing away with fully operational guns), and it is completely in private hands at that point. The sales agreement may have terms like "not to be resold without permission" but a court may find those terms unenforceable.
It happens. Would it happen to an "individual"? Well, if the contractor is privately held (and some are) then what else do you call it?
On top of that there is nothing stopping Colt or the like from buying a demilled F-4 and installing all the weaponry they want. FAA doesn't care. BATFE cares because there are laws controlling the guns themselves but dealers, manufacturers, security businesses, and others are used to dealing with those laws and the BATFE.
If a contractor (especially one with a manufacturing FFL) can convince the DOD they need a fully equipped F-16 for training, demonstration, or development the DOD can sell it, the contractor can operate it (including blazing away with fully operational guns), and it is completely in private hands at that point. The sales agreement may have terms like "not to be resold without permission" but a court may find those terms unenforceable.
It happens. Would it happen to an "individual"? Well, if the contractor is privately held (and some are) then what else do you call it?
On top of that there is nothing stopping Colt or the like from buying a demilled F-4 and installing all the weaponry they want. FAA doesn't care. BATFE cares because there are laws controlling the guns themselves but dealers, manufacturers, security businesses, and others are used to dealing with those laws and the BATFE.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It ain't about what you got, it's about that you are not limited. To concede one iota of the right, to allow one limit, is to eventually have it all infringed to oblivion.
Woody
Woody
Do some of you guys really believe that "gangstas" will want to spend money on all the ammo to feed a full auto weapon when they usually just buy the cheapest ammo that fits in the magazine of their "gats"? Or do you think they will start the time consuming practice of reloading to save money? Do you believe there is not already a black market for guns illegally converted to full auto, even in the US?
I think we should be able to have what we can afford, except for NBC weapons (nuclear, biological and chemical), and then be fully prosecuted if we misuse it, .
I think we should be able to have what we can afford, except for NBC weapons (nuclear, biological and chemical), and then be fully prosecuted if we misuse it, .
Last edited:
DragonFire
Member
You could ask the question about lots of things besides firearms.
What is realistic to you and what is realistic to me probably differ a great deal.
The problem (especially with firearms) is whom is going to make the definitions. I'm with the folks that have replied that there has to be some limit to what "individuals" can own, but I realize I'm not qualified to define what the limit can be. Maybe its the old quote about pornography: "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it".
Doesn't Mike Dillon (from Dillon Reloading) personally own some quad-fifities (among other "toys"), that he shoots on his own properties? I think there are some videos somewhere of some of his shoots. It's especially spectacular at night. Would quad-fifities have a realistic purpose for an individual? I bet if you ask Dillon, or anyone else he's given a chance to shoot them, you'd get a huge YES!
MachIVshooter
Member
And the fanatical anti's want to take away all freedoms to own firearms, no exceptions at all for any reason, period.
The extremes define the middle.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
