Curiosity: What is "Acceptable Gun Control"?

[Bassturd]

Philosophically speaking.

Starting with 2 premises...

1) What does: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" cover

2) At what level of weaponry have we surpassed that right, IE. Since the government can keep and bear nuclear missiles should we the people also legally have access to nuclear missiles?

I am not baiting, I am curious what people here think. Should there be a line? Should there be no line? If there should be a line, where should that line be?

If the second amendment is about self defense, what does that mean? Self defense from a tank or a fighter jet is a different scale than self defense from some guy trying to break into your house or mug you in an alley.

For my part, I am asking because I do believe there should be a line, but I am not sure where that line should be. My gut tells me that anything that would be considered "small arms" by the military should be legal and available to every Tom, Dick, and Harriette, but that's just me. And anything bigger probably is not an intended application for the second amendment.

 

[jdubois]

See here for an interesting opinion on the subject. The relevant part starts on page 7.

 

[doobie]

"Acceptable Gun Control" are laws preventing the use of firearms in crimes. Anything else is an infringement.

If you ask an anti...acceptable gun control is the police and military are the only ones who are safe enough to have/use firearms.

 

[tele_mark]

"Acceptable Gun Control" are laws preventing the use of firearms in crimes. Anything else is an infringement.

If you ask an anti...acceptable gun control is the police and military are the only ones who are safe enough to have/use firearms.

No needed. The only laws needed in these cases are laws that say it's illegal to commit assault, murder, etc. No need to mention firearms or any weapons at all.

 

[Bassturd]

See here for an interesting opinion on the subject. The relevant part starts on page 7.

I will definitely read that thanks for the link!

But I am curious more about what is acceptable to the people here.

 

[Bassturd]

"Acceptable Gun Control" are laws preventing the use of firearms in crimes. Anything else is an infringement.

If you ask an anti...acceptable gun control is the police and military are the only ones who are safe enough to have/use firearms.

I understand, but care more about what you think.

So people owning nukes is okay by you? Or, more directly, you think it should be allowed under the Law?

Sorry to be using an extreme, but I feel like it's necessary to explore what is happening at the fringe in order to really understand how people think about this.

 

[BOBKATT]

I agree with you on the "small arms". Small arms in current use by the military and police is what I truly feel that the writers of the Bill Of Rights would have meant. For example, people weren't keeping the cannons and stuff like that in their homes, that I know of.

 

[Bassturd]

I agree with you on the "small arms". Small arms in current use by the military and police is what I truly feel that the writers of the Bill Of Rights would have meant. For example, people weren't keeping the cannons and stuff like that in their homes, that I know of.

I am thinking surface to air, RPG, grenades...things that a single man can use. There's about my personal line.

 

[doobie]

I understand, but care more about what you think.

So people owning nukes is okay by you? Or, more directly, you think it should be allowed under the Law?

Sorry to be using an extreme, but I feel like it's necessary to explore what is happening at the fringe in order to really understand how people think about this.

My first line was my thoughts. If someone is capable of getting a nuke, why not? It isn't a trivial or cheap thing. And if you say "you can't have nukes." what is to say someone won't invent something more sinister?

tele_mark corrected me. No laws or regulation against firearms needed. Same with mace, knifes. Make it a crime to harm someone else regardless of the method.

And most importantly get rid of the BATFE, immediately. or just call it the BAT...because they are BATty anyway.

 

[doobie]

Control is regulation, and regulation is slavery.

 

[dixidawg]

To keep and bear arms implies to me only arms that a man can carry.

 

[Yelena]

The only reasonable gun control is gun education.

 

[Yelena]

To keep and bear arms implies to me only arms that a man can carry.

How about RPGs?

 

[Chris]

Acceptable Gun Control

If you can hit the target, your control is acceptable.

Any other attempt at 'Gun Control' is a misleading and flawed train of thought.

The GUN can not do anything. The person is the motivator. If you deal with the person's actions the gun is a moot point. Our founding fathers knew this. Guns in the hands of civilians is only a threat to GOVERNMENT. Which is why every government on the face of the earth wants to control it.

 

[Pete85]

Anything that it is reasonible for one man/woman to use is covered by the constitution. That's to include all firearms, "destructive devices" such as grenades, small rockets etc. Any law that says xyz weapon is banned except for use by law enforcement or military, is unconstitutional in my opinion.

Let me ask the reverse of this question now, why is it ok for the military or police to have weapons that the public cannot? Does putting a uniform on a person make them less likely to commit crimes?

 

[dwarven1]

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

I need another T-shirt with that on it...

 

[drgrant]

No needed. The only laws needed in these cases are laws that say it's illegal to commit assault, murder, etc. No need to mention firearms or any weapons at all.

Exactly! Why the hell is murder with a gun any different than someone getting their head bashed in or stabbed with a knife? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

-Mike

 

[Chris]

Pete85, to go along with your comment, the only registered machine gun that has been used in a crime was committed by a police officer.

There is no reason to limit arms. For example, nukes require exceptional storage and monitoring. Standard laws in regard to creating a hazard to the public would apply just as it would if the person was burning tires on their property.

RPGs? Why not? you use it against another person and you face the murder and mayhem charges.

Crime Prevention is a myth. You can no more prevent crime than stop the earth from rotating. All you can do is make the penalty such that most people would not want to chance suffering it. And this is the major failing in the USA today. Our courts are NOT punishing the criminals.

 

[doobie]

How about RPGs?

I'm all for RPGs, but again, you can't use it to harm another person....

 

[doobie]

Crime Prevention is a myth. You can no more prevent crime than stop the earth from rotating. All you can do is make the penalty such that most people would not want to chance suffering it. And this is the major failing in the USA today. Our courts are NOT punishing the criminals.

You can more easily stop the Earth from rotating than stopping crime. Earth's rotation is based on centripetal forces, if you find a method to deplete it you can stop the earth.

Then again I guess you can also stop crime by killing every person on the planet too, which stopping the earth's rotation would also likely do.

 

[Tiktock]

The day suitcase nukes are OK'd for the average person to own is the day I buy a cabin up in the permafrost and unplug from society.

Im not so sure on this argument. Im all for the constitution but I really am not sure that I really want anyone having access to surface-to-air heat seeking missles or being able to buy small canisters of nerve gas. A line simply has to be drawn somwhere, but I have no idea how to draw it.

 

[jdubois]

A government considering prohibitions on anything, be it guns, drugs, or Barnie the purple dinosaur (please, please, ban Barnie...) has to ask a few fundamental questions. 1) Does the benefit to society outweigh the damage to individual liberty, 2) Does the prohibition actually provide the benefit you think it does and can it be effectively enforced, and 3) do the people democratically support the prohibition. We here in the US also have a fourth question, does the prohibition agree with the constitution?

When you are talking about a nuclear device, I think the answer to the first three questions is definitely yes, and the fourth question is most probably yes. When you are talking about standard, readily available handguns the answer to all the questions is definitely no, except for possibly the third question. Things between that are likely on a sliding scale, and it's a difficult and disagreeable thing to pinpoint the edge.

 

[C-pher]

If the person has shown to be responsibile...then whatever that person can afford.

 

[FPrice]

Sorry to be using an extreme, but I feel like it's necessary to explore what is happening at the fringe in order to really understand how people think about this.

Well, this is not the fringe, this is the mainstream. So we can only tell you what is happening in the mainstream.

 

[GrendelKhan]

If the person has shown to be responsibile...then whatever that person can afford.

Responsible = Suitable

Yes?

Bad idea.

 

[Bassturd]

A government considering prohibitions on anything, be it guns, drugs, or Barnie the purple dinosaur (please, please, ban Barnie...) has to ask a few fundamental questions. 1) Does the benefit to society outweigh the damage to individual liberty, 2) Does the prohibition actually provide the benefit you think it does and can it be effectively enforced, and 3) do the people democratically support the prohibition. We here in the US also have a fourth question, does the prohibition agree with the constitution?

When you are talking about a nuclear device, I think the answer to the first three questions is definitely yes, and the fourth question is most probably yes. When you are talking about standard, readily available handguns the answer to all the questions is definitely no, except for possibly the third question. Things between that are likely on a sliding scale, and it's a difficult and disagreeable thing to pinpoint the edge.

Great answer.

 

[Palladin]

Mag-na-port

 

[Mikey]

The nuclear device argument is B.S. IMO. Can it be effectively used by citizens to defend themselves against crooks or the government without killing innocent individuals? NO. Therefor you are now stepping on the rights of others which is a no no.

I don't see any gun control that works, all rifles, handguns and shotguns should be legal to own.

I also think we should have the ability to form militias completely void of government interference were we can receive, store and if needed use all kinds of small arms against a tyrannical .gov or invading foreign force.

 

[Bassturd]

The nuclear device argument is B.S. IMO. Can it be effectively used by citizens to defend themselves against crooks or the government without killing innocent individuals? NO. Therefor you are now stepping on the rights of others which is a no no.

I don't see any gun control that works, all rifles, handguns and shotguns should be legal to own.

I also think we should have the ability to form militias completely void of government interference were we can receive, store and if needed use all kinds of small arms against a tyrannical .gov or invading foreign force.

The nuclear device argument isn't an argument here. It's an example of a place to draw the line. I 100% agree with why you stated it shouldn't be allowed and is out of bounds.

I also agree that access small arms should be unrestricted (save violent felons).

 

[Tater]

The nuclear device argument is B.S. IMO. Can it be effectively used by citizens to defend themselves against crooks or the government without killing innocent individuals? NO. Therefor you are now stepping on the rights of others which is a no no.

I don't see any gun control that works, all rifles, handguns and shotguns should be legal to own.

I also think we should have the ability to form militias completely void of government interference were we can receive, store and if needed use all kinds of small arms against a tyrannical .gov or invading foreign force.

+1 --