Let's stir the pot....what is the limit for gun rights (typology of gun)???

[NG VI]

I would love to have a small plane with some MG's on it, even if I had to go the route of installing four or six semi versions and gettin' my Star Fox thumbs on to fire them relatively quickly. if I could afford it i'd love it.

 

[Cyclimus]

I'd like an Apache for getting to and from work. No traffic jams for me thank you.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I know of 4 good gun laws,

1.All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).
2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).
4.Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified

These are rules which any person of any gun laws position can agree with.

 

[Dumpster Baby]

The extremes define the middle.

Exactly! I'm a 95% extremist myself but don't have a death wish either. You don't make cheap machine guns easily available to bullied 14 year olds with an inferiority complex or make it easy for a disgruntled postal worker to quickly pick something up on the way to work.

 

[jlbraun]

Olllllld.

The Militia Act of 1792 clearly spells out what arms are protected explicitly - a common military rifle, sufficient ammunition, and a bayonet.

The modern arms that are therefore protected are all individual weapons like the M249 SAW, M16 assault rifle, M4 assault rifle, M9 pistol, M40 sniper rifle, .50BMG sniper rifle, M240 machinegun, M2 .50BMG machinegun, etc. Ordnance like howitzers, bombs, nukes, and artillery is not explicitly protected - but are not forbidden either.

I find it funny how people can go back and forth on this so much when it's all spelled out already.

(and if you want my opinion on it, between 7 and 70 tons of TNT equivalent is the individual upper limit on force in the United States. Go search for how I did the math.)

 

[jerkface11]

Dumpster Baby you seem to be saying there should be a psych exam for everyone buying a gun. After all how else will we know it isn't a disgruntled employee buying the guns? And yes you deserved to get flamed on arf.com.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Exactly! I'm a 95% extremist myself but don't have a death wish either. You don't make cheap machine guns easily available to bullied 14 year olds with an inferiority complex or make it easy for a disgruntled postal worker to quickly pick something up on the way to work.

The persons you describe would not be long for life if others are similarly unrestricted in their choice of defensive tools. The "wild west" was never so wild as it is "remembered" to be.

 

[Vibe]

If it ain't "crew served" it should be fair game. But let's face it, "Corporate entities" that can afford them can get even the crew served armaments - not just the NFA items private citizens cannot get.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yup. It's about the middle, and the Constitution is exactly that. The middle. We have the unlimited right to arms, and the compromise is that we are limited in how we may use them. Thats the middle. We can have what we want but may only use them up to the limits in the law.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Soybomb]

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.

So just to be clear you believe that criminals won't get guns that are illegal? Doesn't that go against the idea of them being criminals? We spend billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs and we can't stop them from pouring into the country. They're sure not buying them at the local drug store. The guy who doesn't cae about breaking the law will get illegal guns, they'll modify existing guns even if its against the law. They're criminals, its what they do. You and I may follow the law, they will not.


Back to the topic at hand, part of the revolutionary war involved a large number of privately owned war ships and cannon being used against the british. I think the founders knew the value of well armed citizens and didn't believe that ended at rifles.

 

[Gator]

The Militia Act of 1792 clearly spells out what arms are protected explicitly - a common military rifle, sufficient ammunition, and a bayonet.

The modern arms that are therefore protected are all individual weapons like the M249 SAW, M16 assault rifle, M4 assault rifle, M9 pistol, M40 sniper rifle, .50BMG sniper rifle, M240 machinegun, M2 .50BMG machinegun, etc. Ordnance like howitzers, bombs, nukes, and artillery is not explicitly protected - but are not forbidden either.

I find it funny how people can go back and forth on this so much when it's all spelled out already.

+1!



ty·pol·o·gy /taɪˈpɒlədʒi/ noun
1. the doctrine or study of types or prefigurative symbols, esp. in scriptural literature.
2. a systematic classification or study of types.
3. symbolism.
4. Linguistics. the study and classification of languages according to structural features, esp. patterns of phonology, morphology, and syntax, without reference to their histories.

 

[Vibe]

I'll repeat an idea I've been trying to promote for a while. Instead of issuing a license to lawfull citizens to allow them to own firearms, flag the licenses (or IDs) of those NOT allowed to purchase. In that way even Joe Blow who puts an ad in the classifieds can check to see if the intended buyer is a proscribed person. No "fancy" NICS to deal with, and is fairly effective. Of course anyone caught using a falsified ID would have that additional charge applied.

 

[ZeSpectre]

You don't make cheap machine guns easily available to bullied 14 year olds with an inferiority complex or make it easy for a disgruntled postal worker to quickly pick something up on the way to work.

"Blood in the streets" "Blood in the streets".
When the restrictions on firearms ownership have been relaxed to the general public that sort of thing just doesn't happen.

Why?

Because the folks who would pick up a gun and try mass murder are COWARDS. They choose a firearm because they believe it gives them a superiority they have been unable to earn elsewhere in their lives. Without fail they decline to make any attempt at violence in any venue where they stand a chance of meeting immediate resistance from a similarly armed populace with a sense of civic responsibility.

 

[Baba Louie]

I feel that US Citizens should be able to legally own any arm applicable to militia service. I am old enough to remember those ads for Lathi's and Solothurn 20 mm anti-tank guns as a boy... I met some old timers (more than likely WWII vets but to a 10 year old back in '65, everyone past 15 was old) who had 60mm mortars, BAR's, etc. One guy had a little 37mm mountain pack cannon(?). God I lusted after that.

Most of these guys lived near Leavenworth or Ft Riley, if that tells you anything (I was raised near KC, MO).

Bad guys are going to get and use whatever they can get their hands on, laws and bans notwithstanding, doncha think? LEO's as well. We know what our military has. Who does that leave in the lurch, eh?

If the time ever comes to fight/defend, I'd sure hate to have to fight fair by gov't decree. (not that that could ever happen in the 21st century USA of course). They call that losing.

And while I might lose anyway, I'd like to at least have a chance at surviving, holding my own or maybe even winning. I'm not sure, but I think that was one reason the RKBA was added in the number 4 spot on the original 12 amendments in the BOR's. I really think that most Free Americans would agree... to a point.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[Dumpster Baby]

Dumpster Baby you seem to be saying there should be a psych exam for everyone buying a gun. After all how else will we know it isn't a disgruntled employee buying the guns? And yes you deserved to get flamed on arf.com.

No, I'm saying the opposite - do away with about 95% of the existing gun laws. Only do background checks on purchasers of machine guns and destructive devices, reduce the tax stamp to no more than $50, and un-restrict short barreled rifles, shoulder stocks, etc, etc. Don't make it dead simple for crazies and cultural criminals to casually pick up a MAC-10 on their way to a "social appointment".

The persons you describe would not be long for life if others are similarly unrestricted in their choice of defensive tools. The "wild west" was never so wild as it is "remembered" to be.

Great, everyone has to go around strapped and ready for combat at the drop of a hat. Everyone has to be combat trained and have a killer instinct. Mad Max World.

Yup. It's about the middle, and the Constitution is exactly that. The middle. We have the unlimited right to arms, and the compromise is that we are limited in how we may use them. Thats the middle. We can have what we want but may only use them up to the limits in the law.

I wish the millions of habitual and opportunistic criminals we have followed that philosophy with their guns, knives, clubs, and drugs. The rest of us could be like the gun toting citizens of Switzerland or Israel with no problems, but they have problems surviving the day.

So just to be clear you believe that criminals won't get guns that are illegal? Doesn't that go against the idea of them being criminals? We spend billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs and we can't stop them from pouring into the country. They're sure not buying them at the local drug store. The guy who doesn't cae about breaking the law will get illegal guns, they'll modify existing guns even if its against the law. They're criminals, its what they do. You and I may follow the law, they will not

What I don't believe in is making it dead simple easy for everyone to pick up that dead serious bullet hose at Wal-Mart, with no questions asked, on their way to a confrontation with their classmates, coworkers, neighbors, rival gangstas, whatever. They can do just that now with any kind of legal or illegal weapon they can get their hands on. They will continue to do that with any kind of legal or illegal weapon they can get their hands on, no matter what anyone does. But, making any and all kinds of firearms and destructive devices readily available to everyone with no restrictions at all is a recipe for disaster. You don't give a crate of machine guns to a bunch of kids on the playground, and that's essentially what the 100% gun rights folk are advocating - any kind of weapon for anyone, no questions asked.

Children are basically savages until they have received enough training and correction to become civilized. Unfortunately, we have millions of citizens who aren't civilized enough to get through life without periodic visits to the slammer and emergency room to get the latest gangsta bullets removed. I can't see empowering them to be vastly more dangerous and destructive than they already are.

Everyone seems to think "X isn't happening on the streets now so X won't happen in the future, and even if it does I'm pretty damn good with my Glock". I invite them to go to Mogadishu and look all those khat stoner zombies with the AK's and RPD's in the eye and see if they can still say "no problemo".

 

[Gordon Fink]

I would set the strictest limit at high-energy, anti-stellar gamma-ray lasers and the most permissive limit at galactic-strength quantum-gravitational weapons.

~G. Fink

 

[Phil DeGraves]

No limits. Nukes, jet aircraft, ballistic missiles do not qualify as "guns".

 

[MakAttak]

Great, everyone has to go around strapped and ready for combat at the drop of a hat. Everyone has to be combat trained and have a killer instinct. Mad Max World.

Really? You honestly think that would happen?

Why didn't it happen back when there were no restrictions?

Why are criminals NOT using rifles with high capacity magazine now?

You are engaging in the same sort of fantasy the anit-ccw crowd is.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"They can do just that now with any kind of legal or illegal weapon they can get their hands on. They will continue to do that with any kind of legal or illegal weapon they can get their hands on, no matter what anyone does."

Precisely! So what good would restrictions do, if it doesn't keep them out of the hands of criminals? All restrictions do is keep them out of the hands of the law abiding. You don't have to worry about the law abiding because THEY DON"T BREAK THE LAW!

"I can't see empowering them to be vastly more dangerous and destructive than they already are."

Are you serious? They are already dangerous and destructive! What good are resrictions if the criminals ignore them as you have admitted they already do?

Gasoline is unregistered. Any bad guy can go to a gas pump and get gallons of gasoline and burn down pretty much whatever he wants. How is that any less dangerous than a full auto gun which despite Feinstein's claim, you need to possess a fair amount of skill to consistently put hits on target?

 

[ZeSpectre]

You don't have to worry about the law abiding because THEY DON"T BREAK THE LAW!

And I'll add that there are those amongst the law abiding who go a bit further and also tend to strongly discourage others from breaking the law (that whole civic responsibility thing).

 

[Headless]

If everyone was packing compact SMG's with select fire capability, those gangsters you are so worried about would get cut to pieces the first time they tried to rob the local 7-11. Their little gangster friends would see the blood and perhaps decide it was not such a good payoff to get 50$ from the cashier and risk getting shot by 5 customers repeatedly. They have automatic weaponry ANYWAY - why? because they are CRIMINALS WHO BREAK THE LAW. Why in the world do you think that outlawing something makes it impossible for someone who breaks the law to get? People would not 'need' to go around strapped then any more than they already need to. Great - ban fully automatic weapons...from the law abiding. Smart decision, that, considering that we KNOW that criminals have them ANYWAY. Legalizing them for purchase without stupid tax stamps wouldn't change things for criminals except to make law abiding citizens more dangerous. They will have their own weaponry either way. I suspect that dumpster baby has been spending too long watching brady campaign propoganda

 

[Nickotym]

Dumpster Baby, Have you ever fired a machine gun?

I haven't either, but I do know that they are not bullet hoses that magically make all your rounds hit the target and kill everything they come in contact with.

I also don't think I should be kept from possessing and using something legally just because some loser might use it for illegal purposes. If we let that become the prevailing opinion, what happens to our hunting rifles, handguns, and even jackknives that may at some point be used by others for illegal purposes?

 

[TwitchALot]

The problem with some of the positions here is the same problem with many positions of other people- inconsistency. If you say two pounds of explosives should be fine, I can say 10. Someone can say 20. It's arbitrary at that point, and laws should not be arbitrary, because if they are, they aren't fair.

My line is if it goes bang (or in the future, psssew), you're good. If it goes boom, government only. This of course, includes local government (city, county, state, so on), so if a rebellion were needed, ATGMs and AA weapons and the like would be obtainable by ordinary citizens (via local armories). At the same time, this protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. It is a consistent, objective position. Tanks, planes, helicopters, that's fine, if anyone is willing to sell it to you.

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.

They wouldn't be making so much money from selling drugs if it weren't outlawed to begin with. Not that the federal government has any rightful authority to do such a thing to begin with, but that's not the point.

 

[Ed Ames]

So no privately operated fireworks companies?

 

[scottishclaymore]

IronSightRot671:

I NEED ONE!