Opinion: how powerful of a weapon should be legal?

How powerful a weapon should the average guy be allowed to buy?

  • Hunting rifles, target pistol (Aussie rules)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Semi-auto rifle/pistol (US laws)

    Votes: 13 5.7%
  • Full auto .50 or less

    Votes: 55 24.2%
  • Anti-Armor or Anti-Air guns, shells

    Votes: 10 4.4%
  • Shoulder-fired rockets, RPGs

    Votes: 9 4.0%
  • Mortars, light howitzers

    Votes: 8 3.5%
  • Any conventional weapon

    Votes: 108 47.6%
  • Tactical nukes (destroy or contaminate sq mile)

    Votes: 24 10.6%

  • Total voters
    227
Status
Not open for further replies.
A question to all those who'd like to regulate explosives: do you reload?
Because if you do, you just granted the BATF permission to do random checks of your home to ensure compliance with the "safe storage" laws for that powder you bought.

I cannot comprehend why some people think that anyone so criminally irresponsible as to store nitro in an unsafe way could be trusted with a gun of any sort. Or a car for that matter. As to those who worry about over the counter RPG's taking out airliners.... since when did making something illegal keep it out of the criminals hands?
 
We should be able to own anything short of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons. NBC stuff is too indiscriminate in its effects, and the ramifications of improper storage are severe.

The Framers clearly contemplated private ownership of weapons up to and including warships, as evidenced by the clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Likewise, artillery pieces were often owned by private citizens at that time.
 
I can see it all now...

You are in your backyard.....grilling steaks when you hear the last words you will ever hear uttered....

Your neighbor...on the other side of the fence....


saying.....

OOPS!:what:
 
Well, I think any handgun, rifle or shotgun not capable of full auto fire should be legal (ie no restrictions on FNs etc...) and I don't really think there would be a huge demand for smallish (MAC10/mini AK and smaller) full autos would be sky high as long as the prices stay up.

I must admit that a full auto .50 or a minigun in the hands of the wong guy scares me a bit more than a Glock or a bolt rifle. :uhoh:
 
I voted for everythig up to NBC...

The unrestricted ownership of weaponry has to be viewed in the Libertarian context where it is possible, and conversely, the Libertarian context it would help create.

You'd have to imagine a Libertarian state, a-la L. Neil Smith where this is possible. Perhaps a "Libertarian States of America" or the parallel world of the North American Confederacy of his Probability Broach novels...

The LSA or the NAC would have no taxes, therefore no powerful central government to threaten the freedom of it's citizens.

Much of all "crime" is done away with out of sheer irrelevancy, because only acts that are Malum Per Se, (i.e. acts that directly harm others) are offenses. This means no drug wars, no gangs, no mob, no addict crimes, since they all exist and fight over the profiting from artificial scarcity created by governmental fiat.

Everyone who wishes to work, even part-time, can earn a living wage, as the lack of government regulation and taxes, and the lack subsequent burdens passed along through consumer goods etc. effectively doubles, triples, and quadruples the buying power of the individual.

External terrorists do not attack the NAC because it's a giant Switzerland, neither friend nor enemy to anyone. It just "is", and any dealings with other nations are between its individuals and consensually formed groups, and not the "state". There is terrorism, but it's domestic, and caused by those looking for their own self-serving pretext to establish an authoritarian regime.

Therefore while these weapons are possible, few bother to own them since they're still expensive, inconvenient to operate alone, and not really needed. Those that do have them, fear the direct retribution of their neighbors from misuse than some long drawn out process of courts and charges from the state. Fiscal liability is also swift and certain, there is no "bankruptcy" protection from the state. If Joe Sixpack blows up your house with an "oopsie" with his 81mm mortar, the courts will likely award you his. :D Most military vehicles and crew served weaponry is really owned jointly (like partners in a yacht or plane) by local militias that serve in lieu of standing armies.

NBC is still frowned upon as it violates the non-initiation of force. It is nearly impossible to employ them without harming innocents.

Aside that, Balog and others make the point that we marshal destructive forces comparable to artillery and RPG's every day. They're called cars.

Who would you feel safer next to? A gun-nut neighbor who owns an RPG in his safe, and takes it to Knob Creek for some fun, or on the freeway one lane over from soccer-mommie in a Hummer H2 doing 65Mph while simultaneously talking on her cell phone, applying makeup, and scolding her kids in the back seat?

It's all kinetic energy and foot-pounds. The difference is merely in our heads. It's a matter of semantics and perception, one is a "weapon" the other is a "car". In reality, both are "tools", and you want to be standing in front of neither of them.

And as others have pointed out, privateers, merchants, and trading forts all possessed privately owned cannon in colonial times.

It is also worth noting that when you look at things like Waco, is a government monopoly over "military weaponry" really somehow "superior"? Ask a Native American or perhaps a Jew.

All of the great disasters, genocides, massacres, etc. have all been caused by government, or at least the abuse of government, and not by a "lack of government". Even the current genocides being conducted in pseudo-anarchistic regions of Africa were really facilitated by one side being gullible enough to disarm at government's behest.
 
Mala in se = bad in and of itself. Mala prohiba = bad because prohibited.
Just to clear that up. "Malum Prohibitum" is, I believe, not even Latin. Tho I suppose it could be a conjugation.
 
Nukes just don't offer me the degree of surgical precision I desire.

Something along the lines of a M136 AT4 recoilless rifle might, though.

Realistically, a Solothurn or nice 50BMG rifle is probably more realistic as far as the upper end of a man-portable-in-a-pinch Loudenboomerhardgenkickfer.

Regards,
Rabbit.
 
Those of you drawing your line at "nukes" need to consider the scenario in which I own a Starship Cruiser And Need To Protect My Ship In The Intergalactic Cold Of Space against Pirates.

As long as the possession of the weapon itself does not produce an immediate danger to others, then it's okay. If I'm out cruising in space, mining asteroids and so forth, I'm golden. If I'm storing a nuke or 10,000 of TNT in my basement, my neighbors have a legitimate concern.

-z
 
Before we jump right in let's ask the purpose of such laws and restrictions. I think we can agree minimally that would be to save lives, and to prevent injuries and criminal acts. Next let's examine how our gov't. has approached regulating the use of other dangerous but inanimate objects, i.e. automobiles and alcohol. Let's say you've got a 16 yr. old, and you've decided for that 1st vehicle you're gonna give Lil' Johnny/ Mary a 400 H.P. Porsche Turbo. Now before you accuse me of exaggerating, I'm in da' car bidness, and I've not only seen this happen, but seen it many times over. Now let's say Johnny's had a drinking/drug problem, but he's tested clean, so you get him this Porsche as a reward. Johnny goes out and gets slobernockered, kills a few people, goes to Juvi for a few years(if at all), and life goes on. Bottom line is that alcohol and automobiles kill so many more people than guns, under any circumstances. Can you imagine the outcry if the government limited the horsepower of the vehicle you could drive, (read ban .50 cal. weapons), or had blood alcohol/drug testing devices attatched to the ignition of your car(read "decoder ring" trigger lock devices). So before you answer this "survey", ask yourself, do we really want to go there? What a can of worms that would be!
 
Any conventional until proven otherwise that you can't handle it.

I was sorta' surprised to see the number of people voting for full tactical nukes though....
 
Seems many here don't understand why the 2nd amendment exists.

It is not about people having toys to play with. It is about the individual people who make up the country being stronger than the politicians in charge of the country, or as strong as the meanest bad guy they will ever conceivably meet.

I vote with the others who say there is no limit on what individuals can have. Remember, we usually say gun laws don't work because then only criminals have guns.

Same for nukes. It is cost and complexity that stops terrorists from using them, not the law.

If ANY ONE in the world can possess a weapon, I should legally be able to possess the same weapon.

Or else what is the meaning of self-defense?
 
Well, it looks like a bimodal distribution curve. :)

I voted on the lower mode, which is just about what we have today with few exceptions for collectors. 50's and MGs.

I'm sure I will get a lot of flack about this, but I must point out the founding fathers were fully aware of the fact that there are different levels of competence in the world. So they wrote the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution with the general reasonable man in mind.

Too bad it hasn't worked all the time.

I might be perfectly comfortable with Sam having a bazooka to shoot prairie dogs with, but looking at some of the civilian tyrants we've had in our history the idea of them being freely available is pretty scary.

Not calling any present day names, imagine what our history would have been like if all the 19th century robber barons like Leland Stanford and Andrew Carnagie had owned tactical nuclear devices. The US would be a collection of baronies in perpetual warfare like Frankish Europe.

Well, I will call one name. What if the nutball Hinkley had been able to buy a bazooka?
 
Yeah, a concealed carry bazooka. Or a CCW squad assault weapon (30 pounds?)

Groups of militias with self-propelled artillery and tanks invading neighboring baronies. Oh yeah, that happened to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and Sudetanland and Poland and France, and China and SE Asia.

If we have equal arms, and choose to employ them, it would be a fool's errand to be the aggressor. No matter who that aggressor is (militias, foreign invaders, BATFE, etc.)
 
Question.

1. How many miles per gallon does an M2 Bradley get
2. Should licensing and registration for tanks be increased to reflect wear and tear on public roads?
3. If guys in F350s park in parking spaces marked 'compact', what kind of work will the 25mm do on one of those? :D
 
You should have added doomsday weapon to the list. Still theoretical at this point, but should one be developed, there is no reason (according to the "I have a right to own nukes" crowd) that every living person on the face of the planet should not have the ability to own a weapon which would destroy all of mankind. Of course, logic would dictate this to be absurd, but I'm sure there are a few who would attempt all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it.
 
Seems many here don't understand why the 2nd amendment exists.

It is not about people having toys to play with. It is about the individual people who make up the country being stronger than the politicians in charge of the country, or as strong as the meanest bad guy they will ever conceivably meet.

I vote with the others who say there is no limit on what individuals can have. Remember, we usually say gun laws don't work because then only criminals have guns.

Same for nukes. It is cost and complexity that stops terrorists from using them, not the law.

If ANY ONE in the world can possess a weapon, I should legally be able to possess the same weapon.

This needs repeating.
 
Without reading all these posts, if I wanted to pay attention to:
1. Most people have already proven their responsibility, so I don't feel a need to be scared they will go "bonkers" (and there are consequences);
2. The 2nd A is pretty clear and concise;
3. Back then the big rig transport semi's of the day (wooden sailing ships) often had personal firearms (cannons, rifles, handguns, ie the same xact firearms as the military); and
4. Local hotels (Sutter's Fort here in Sacramento) also had the same firearms as above (stop in at Sutter's Fort and look at his personal cannons (http://www.pashnit.com/roads/cal/SuttersFort.htm));

Then I might wonder why the politicians are so upset. Two other things come to mind, first, upset politicians happen throughout history & all ovet the world; and second: biological & nuclear weapons make this an interesting topic. Where would we draw the line?? Well, we know the anti's have already drawn the line......
 
Hmmm ...

I don't know the answer to your question.

How "powerful" of a mind should the ordinary citizen be permitted to develop? Who gets to make that decision?

So-called "common knowledge" can often be used improperly, and certainly in illegal manner ... and stupidly, if we're being candid ... with tragic and deadly results.

Of course, "weapons" are sort of reflections of "tools" ... humans being accomplsihed tool-makers & tool-users ... and while tools often only require someone to pick them up and "use" them, and not actually "build them", it can be said that a certain level of societal control of the general availability of "SOME TOOLS" would be appropriate ...

Who gets to make that call?

Well, aren't we supposed to be a government "of the people" & "by the people", and "for the people" etc., etc.? If I remember my civics right, our Republic doesn't allow for a "tyranny of the majority", since we're not a true democracy ... but the governed people have a representational voice in how they're governed, WITH a central collection of documents to which our desired laws must conform ... which prevents the simple majority from "voting" in any damned thing they may want from one day to the other. The different "branches" which make up our cherished form of self-government seem to do a decent job of preventing one of them from unduly "ruling" the governed people without some level of oversight and review. It still certainly looks better than anything else out there we see around the world, doesn't it?

Where did we go wrong? :scrutiny: Just kidding ... :)

I honestly don't have the answer to your question, but I'm glad it doesn't rest with any particular "individual", you know? No "kings" or royalty desired ...

Well, maybe if it were ME, then I might go along with it ... :D :what: :neener:

as evidenced by the clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal
Hmmm ... :uhoh: Would that come with decent Medical & Dental?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top