What would be the limit of Gun control?

[PromptCritical]

I have often been asked "So, you think everyone should be able to buy a machine gun or a rocket launcher?" I have trouble answering that question because I think it would be fun to touch off a rocket launcher once in a while even though I don't like the idea of someone possibly blowing my house up from a distance.
If you had it your way, what would be the maximum amount of destructive force allowed to be possessed by the average, law abiding citizen? This is assuming price is no option. Also consider the facts of certain weapons being inherently dangerous. (A vote for machine guns means machine guns legal, explosives not)

 

[Jim March]

I'll repeat something I said on another thread:

It's a very good question, something of a variant on the "should people own nukes?" argument.

My personal answer is kinda radical, but makes sense as a practical matter: people should be allowed to have those arms prepared for use which are reasonable to self defense UNDER THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES, and which pose the minimum possible threat to innocent bystanders.

Under this thinking, if you live in a dense housing complex and have a 50BMG Barret set up as a home defense gun, that's just nuts. Crank that sucker off, and it's going to go through about 10 or 20 people's home sweet homes.

Target shoot with it out in the desert, or for that matter use it as home defense piece on a remote ranch, cool.

Piloting a large sailboat through water swarming with drug runners and similar weirdos? A couple of SAWs or similar belt-fed full autos (M60 class or similar) makes perfect sense. Same gun in a suburban tract house? Insane.

Carry a 44Mag loaded with hot hardcast on a crowded subway? Gonzo. Carry the same gun with the same load while fishing in Alaska, in case of bears? Perfectly reasonable.

300 years from now, you're hangin' out on your private asteroid 500,000 miles from the nearest neigbor and you have a legit fear of space pirates of some sort? A home defense setup based on thermonuclear devices makes perfect sense. (Or for another example: we won't be able to mine the asteroid belt without nukes. You want to automatically limit that to governments only?)

Once you apply THIS "reasonableness test", a lot of problems evaporate.

 

[LD]

I guess my reply would be based on the amount of damage that would be done in the case of an accidental discharge. Therefore I'd have to set the upper limit at arty, tanks, etc. If you have an "oops" it's going to be messy, but nowhere near what would happen with a nuke, chem, or bio.

Outside of a restriction of nukes, chem, bios, own what you want and punish for behaviors not for posession (which we should be doing now).

 

[RangerHAAF]

no conventional limits

The spirit and letter of the Constitution says that the civilian population should have access to all of the same weapons that the military forces do.

 

[artherd]

Well, the line in society in general starts to control items which can accidentally kill hundreds of people pretty strictly.

So Chem, Bio, and Nuke (and possibly 2,000lb bombs and the like) should in my opinion be licenced similar to automobile driver's licences. Artillery too, In a perfect world.


The problem is simply one of odds of accident. If an ND happens, at most a few people dead. Regretable, for sure. Same with a machinegun really. Same with a grenade, same really with an RPG. 10-20people dead at the most generally. This is about the limit of what most private citizens are permited to own withought special license. (outside of the weapons area.)


Only when 100s of pounds of TNT are involved do we have the potential for real damage (leveling of a full city block) that exceeds other societial restrictions (eg on storage of quantities of disel fuel, etc.)

Note; I belive that ANY CITIZEN who demonstrates competency and safe-handling should be able to have whatever they wany. *regardless* of 'need' or 'sporting use.'.

If you want a Nuke to defend your house, demonstrate you can handle and use it safely, and you shal have it.

However, the standards of safe-handling should be consumate with the device. (eg nukes very stringent to say the least.)

 

[Art Eatman]

"Average, law-abiding citizen".

I guess I'd have to consider several lines of reasoning. One is the level of knowledge and skill of the average Mr. L-A Citizen. Another is the "Oops!" factor of such things as an accidental fire in a home, and the hazard to neighbors and fire fighters. (The responsibility issue in this latter holds true for such things as gasoline and dynamite, seems to me.)

While I don't really care if you have an Abrams and a freight car full of ammo, I'd prefer that you obey the noise/disturbance laws.

I guess I basically draw the line somewhere around the machine gun level, as far as licensing or government permission. Beyond that, the neighbors could stand some sort of official reassurance.

Art

 

[StuporDave]

Jim March wrote:

people should be allowed to have those arms prepared for use which are reasonable to self defense UNDER THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES

I completely agree with your logic on choosing a self-defense firearm.

Using that same logic as the limits on gun control is scary. Who will decide what is reasonable? Our all-knowing government, who would decide that all I really neede was some pepper spray and a telephone.

Making your statement into "the rules" would be dificult.

If I lived in an apartment complex, I couldn't own a Barret to drive out to the desert on weekends and target shoot? If I lived in the desert I could own a Barret?

I could have an M60 mounted on my boat (that's a pipe dream - the M60 and the boat) but I couldn't take it home to my suburban tract house. It would have to stay on the boat, at the marina, to be stolen?

Your logic in choosing weapons for self-defense is great. Trying to turn that logic into laws or rules I can't see.

Dave

 

[DMK]

What Jim March says makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, common sense is usually legally unenforcable.

Say I own a large pleasure boat and can legally own an M2 bolted to the deck for defense against pirates on the open sea. Some other guy gets busted using an AK for self defense in densly packed apartment complex. Guy no. 2 sues the government because the law is not applied evenly to all citizens.

Most of the time suits like these use the terms "discriminitory" and "unconstitutionally vague". There was a case similar to this in Montana where they had no posted speed limits on some major interstate highways, Autoban style. The law said you had to drive at a speed "reasonable and prudent". So, if you were doing 120 in a brand new Corvette it was OK. If you were doing 70 in a rusty old Chevy Nova with bald tires it was not. Needless to say, the Nova guy didn't like the law and sued. Montana went back to a fixed speed limit for everyone.

 

[Mulliga]

All weapons, all the time.

Why? If the Feds have access to all sorts of nasty little goodies (APCs and tanks like at Waco, tear gas, machine guns, grenades, etc.), why should they be more "trusted" with weapons then the people they are supposed to be representing?

Anything you can carry (and that includes full-size MGs) should be fair game. Tanks and stuff should be available, too - no criminal or terrorist would ever use them, but I could see the private collector or hardcore survivalist wanting one.

 

[Patent Works]

First, the government has no powers not granted to it by the people. If the government has the right to NBC weapons, then we the people must have first had that right in order to share it.

Second, "the security of a free state" or the effort to secure freedom against a threat, is conceivably aided by NBC wepons. Tactical nukes may be useful against the enemy's massed troops. Jim Rawles "Patriots: The Coming Collapse" plays out a scenario in which the enemy's chemical weapons are used successfully against them to defend freedom. ANY arm useful to secure freedom would seem to be intended to be covered by the 2nd amendment.

 

[MagKnightX]

I say explosive devices, but I also think that a NICS check should be required for those. Oh, and also a few "propelled" explosive devices, because I think that 40mm GL rounds should be counted with grenades, but they are technically propelled.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The limit for personal weapons is personal weapons. No permits, no registration, no questions. Including crew-served machine guns.

Explosives are a separate issue since they are not usually an "aimed" weapon or have a damage area that exceeds the need for personal defense.

Local municipalities, when separated from federal government oversight, would be in charge of artillery, anti-tank weapons, and other indirect fire/anti-armor defense. After all, our local government is "supposed" to be "ours" and is the smallest unit of elected representation.

WMDs pose a problem no matter who owns them.

The exercise may be moot. Economics will be a factor. Billy Bob in his trailer will certainly not be able to afford self-propelled artillery. However, organized crime (such as drugs) will have the cash to procure some interesting hardware. This would bring a new definition to "turf wars." Conversely, if we rolled back laws to constitutional meaning, there would probably be no organized crime.

No "Death Star" on the list?

 

[ksnecktieman]

I am pro second ammendment, and anti gun control.

I do not think we should draw a line in the sand, because someone will move the line. If we accept any control willingly it will expand. What federal agency do you want to trust with these controls, or do you want to make another agency.

It seems to me like everyone wants gun control for the other guy, but not for themselves. We all know that criminals break laws, and yet here we are saying we want more laws?

 

[swifter]

I go with the late, great H.Beam Piper's contention, (In Lone Star Planet) that the citizen should be able to own anything the government can.

That said, I really don't like the chemical and biological stuff at all. And there are a lot of irresponsible people out there.:banghead: .

Tom

 

[HankB]

Philosophically, anything goes.

Reaslistically, I'm OK with anything up to and including silencers and machine guns. As an occasional - reluctant - airline passenger, I'd really rather not see Stingers and other SAMs readily available, and things like C4 demolition charges ought not be over the counter items, either. But if someone has a legit reason - say, blowing stumps out of the back 40 - well, that's another story.

If there's a ship or boat operated in international waters, I'm move the notch up to include artillery . . . there ARE still pirates on the high seas.

 

[longeyes]

There are two issues here. For self-defense I'm inclined to draw the line after machine-guns. As 7.62 said, explosives tend to have a sphere of damage exceeding personal defense needs. For defense against tyranny, I think the limits are moot. No government, benign or tyrannical, will provide citizens with the means of its own destruction. When it comes to the point of revolution, the crux will be inalienable rights outside governmental sway, not political consensus. That is to say, people will obtain what they think they need and won't be looking for "permission."

 

[wolf]

laws or not..

the argument of the bad guys having guns/weapons even if they are outlawed...while it seems in war torn countries "kids" that make up the majority of "rebel" forces do have access to hand held rocket launchers etc..they still seem to be in the parameters of a military framework.

last week in los angeles a 16 yr old moron shot and killed a highway patrolman..why..he wanted to impress the local street gang...(gang has over 1000 members according to police...sounds like a small army to me)..being that southern california has many of these street gangs..and if they had access to grenades, MG, rockets etc...and being that they have the financial power, due to drug sales, extortion etc to acquire such weapons..do you think they would hesitate to use them to blow up city hall, or the police station etc...and at what end would you change your mind re: high end weapons..for everyone

the kid that shot the cop..just picked the cop at random..he MAY get life..too young for death...yeah right

wolf

 

[CleverNickname]

Since chem/bio weapons were there, I thought I'd mention that I noticed the other day that "poison gas" weapons are regulated as destructive devices . I'd like to see the BATF examiner's face if/when they got a form 1 for a chem/bio weapon.

 

[dischord]

Asking people who support the 2nd Amt if they support "nukes for all" is like asking people who support the 1st Amt if they support porn using newborn babies. It occasionally leads to interesting mental exercises, but it never has any bearing on real world conflicts like handgun registration or campaign finance reform.

See the definition of red herring.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think a better solution would be the break the gangs.

By their very nature, most, if not all, gangs are criminal enterprises. Are you more worried about jihad or gang violence? Are gangs tolerated to justify police budgets? Do the police have "an agreement" with gangs concerning what is "too far?"

I have been thinking about this from a civil libertarian perspective re: going after groups assembling. However, the crime element, hardcore crime at that, seems to justify pre-emption. Is it a slippery slope?

 

[wolf]

Are you more worried about jihad or gang violence? Are gangs tolerated to justify police budgets? Do the police have "an agreement" with gangs concerning what is "too far?"

-----------------------------------

in los angeles the police DO have an agreement with the gangs..Special order 40...the cops cannot deport illegal immigrants that make up a percentage of the gangs..and even though some communities have tried to enforce "cerfews" and injunctions on gangs...the ACLU and civil libertarians jumped all over that and weakened it..and the gangs know it..

jihad or gang violence? the difference is what exactly..thus my signature

wolf

 

[deanf]

First, the government has no powers not granted to it by the people. If the government has the right to NBC weapons, then we the people must have first had that right in order to share it.

Exactly

It's called delegation of authority. The government has no authority that the people have not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution.

When one (We The People) delegates authority to a subordinate (the government), he of course still retains that authority.

 

[Moparmike]

My view may seem a little weird.


I think that explosives, RPG's, artillery, etc should have a 4473 and a NICS check. Having them should be no problem, but lets make sure that the person isnt wanted by Interpol or the Mossad, ok?

Personally, I want my full-autos, my artillery, my gunships, my tanks, my battleships (mmmmm, Iowa-class.... ), and so on. The neighbors might be a little worried if I parked an Abrahms in the street though. Not to mention the school busses wouldnt be able to get by it.


NBC should be regulated by the DoE and EPA because they will be the ones who have to come clean it up. You can have it, but you must prove that you can safely house it first. Jim Bob Jihad cant have a leaking Plutonium bomb or a slew of fans, open windows, and exposed Anthrax in an aerosol form in his rickety trailer home because of the dangers.


Sounds wierd from an libertarian guy, doesnt it?

 

[dustind]

In response to gangs buying explosives. If they wanted to blow up buildings they could set propane tanks against a building and shoot the tanks. Making or getting a hold of explosives is not to hard, luckily there is little desire to use them.

 

[atek3]

[tinfoil]
But if we outlaw stingers how will the Patriot/Sovereign Individuals take out the UN Black Helo's coming to confiscate our firearms and install verisign chips in our hands, which by the way is the babylonian mark of the beast. Princess Diana knew what was up...
[/tinfoil]

Seriously though, the "right to bear arms" in my mind enshrines the inalienable right to 'arms' aka weapons, capable of being 'borne', aka carried. So FN MAG No problems, no regulation, no infringement. 155 mm self-propelled howitzer, I think should be legal, but we can discuss rationally, I like the 'Jim standard'. I think it all depends on intent too, just like the Vermont carry law. I mean if you and your friends wanted to dig up soil and culture anthrax, thats all well and good. But Anthrax with hostile intent...you get taken out.

atek3