-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Curiosity: What is "Acceptable Gun Control"?
- Thread starter Bassturd
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 686
- Likes
- 111
Violent felons should be in jail.
If a person is deemed dangerous enough that he should not be allowed arms, then he should not be on the street.
Allowing people, deemed so dangerous, to walk my streets, is no reason to restrict arms. It is, in fact, a good reason to NOT restrict arms.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
No gun control is acceptable. The criminals don't obey any of it so why bother? Only the law abiding citizens worry about gun control laws. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution did they live in a crime free world? NO! Did they think only 'good citizens' should have arms? NO! If they did they would have written it into the Constitution but they didn't. Of course, I don't want criminals to have easy access to guns but they have it despite all of the 'gun control measures' out there already. The only people's whose access is restricted are you and I because we follow the laws!!!!![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Those are gray areas. There are felonies that have to do with not paying taxes properly that regardless of how I feel about those individuals, I cannot believe that they should lose their right to self preservation over.
Non-citizens I don't what to do about. If you protect one of their constitutional rights you have to protect them all I suppose. I really don't know enough to comment on this.
Mentally challenged? You mean mentally disabled, right? There's no such thing as mentally challenged, we're all challenged mentally on a day to day basis. But the mentality of a "normal" person differes from "abnormal" if there is a disability. And if so then it depends on the form of and the extent of the disability.
I'm not precisely sure where the line should be but IMO if we start by destroying about 95% of all gun laws (and at least 75% of the ones that inhibit self defense in any way) then we can visit the issue at that point... that would be a good start. Until then, it's somewhat of a moot issue. Most of the crap laws banning this and banning that end up being utterly worthless.
-Mike
-Mike
Back in the day, they advocated violent felons and crazy people be barred from bearing arms.
There also is evidence enough, to believe that anything modern infantry has should be legal to own. That precludes nukes and field arty, but allows machine guns, rpg's and mortars.
I didn't say it made sense, just said what it translates out to.
Frankly speaking, I think we should be allowed to own, without resatriction (barring the obvious people restrictions), select fire rifles, pistols, and a moderate amount of crew served weapons (up to 8mm on the crew served).
Additionally, mortars, larger MG's (like .50 cal and such) and RPG's and such should be ownable, under a permit type basis. A shall issue method, with a quick background check (like NICS) and reasaonable cost provisions, say, $50 fee. Field Arty could be added in here, as well as tanks.
Remember, the latter category is considered be outside what light infantry would normally carry, other than RPG's and light mortars.
From everything I have read - that is pretty much what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the 2nd amendment. The other underlying reason for the 2nd amendment is for DEFENSE. So owning a nuclear weapon could legitimately be banned from personal ownership - or even ownership by a militia group, because a legitimate argument could be made that the use of a nuclear weapon is not defensive - but indiscriminate OFFENSE.
The argument gets cloudy when you start talking about RPG's, crew served machine guns, surface to air, etc. Since RPG's and surface to air missiles could be legimately used as either offensive or defensive weapons - I would argue that there is a legitimate case to be made that they should be able to be owned by entities other than the govt.
The argument that I have heard in the past is that machine guns that are operable by a single person - are completely legitimate under the 2nd amendment (and were in fact able to be owned and bought by civilians quite easily up into the 1930's I believe) - the ownership of crew served machine guns it could be argued are not legitimate for an individual to own - but could legitimately be collectively owned by a militia.
I personally think that pretty much anything up to and including machine guns that are operable by a single person - are legitimate under the 2nd amendment. The fact of the matter is - they WERE completely legal to own in this country at one time before gun banning became a hobby of the left. Anything up to and including 20MM anti tank rifles and full auto BAR's used to be easy to get and were owned by civilians. Somehow along the way we got interbred with retards and now we can't be trusted.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the people remained able to arm themselves in such a fashion as was needed to resist tyranny. Even today - all that is needed to fight back against an army is good battle rifles and maybe the occasional machine gun. It's what they are using in Iraq and Afghanistan - it would work for us too.
I hope we're not letting people out of jail who shouldn't be out of jail.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
If we are, then banning guns isn't going to stop someone from raping kids again is it?
They are not citizens, thus they do not have the protections of the Constitution.
According to who? Sure it's easy to decide when someone can't get out of bed because the shadow people are hiding in his closet. The problem is when you get closer to the middle. Personaly, I think most liberals are nuts.
What gun law was not imposed with the intention of preventing something that was already illegal? Gun laws try to indirectly deal with violence. Thats why they don't work, guns don't cause violence.
People seem to have forgotten that laws are nothing more than definitions. When was the last time a dictionary stopped a word from being misspelled? It hasn't, it merely defines the word as being misspelled. If you want to stop someone from committing a crime, you have to physically stop them. Simply redefining his actions doesn't do anything.
Why all these stupid laws, cause it looks good. A politician can't actually go out and arrest criminals, so how does he prove that he's 'fighting crime'? He passes shitty laws, and lets others get dirty enforcing them.
Acceptable gun laws? I think the Constitution is pretty clear, unless 'shall not be infringed' meant something different back then.
WMD's and other large scale weapons? I don't know, they are certainly 'arms' though. Also note that the Constitution didn't see the difference between a pistol and a warship when they wrote it, why would it now?
What I do know is everyones fears about what would happen if their neighbor had WMDs speaks volumes. The basic assumption I see is that the only thing stopping the average person on this planet from slaughtering everyone else is simply the lack of ability.
Personally, if the only reason society exist is because the people within it are not allowed the ability to destroy it. Then its not much of a society in the first place.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Oh, see my sig...
We would be cut down like paper targets at 25 yards.
---
All restrictions on small arms are bogus, restrictions on weapons of large scale destruction not held by the state are as well as they would have been held by the state militia.
My first general rule involving the RKBA:
If a person lacks the moral fiber or intellectual capacity to differentiate between right and wrong and do the right thing, then that person should also not be allowed to wander around at large without the permission of some authority, much less have the right to keep and bear arms.
In short, if someone shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms, then that person also shouldn't be otherwise free to wander around unsupervised.
How this applies to nukes:
If a free person has the cash to fund and complete his own Manhattan project or buy controlling interest in a nuclear bomb manufacturer. I would be hard pressed to say no. Of course, all it would take to change that would be to successfully argue against the sanity of a person taking on such an endeavor. But then general rule #1 would apply.
How this applies to a potential ICBM:
There have been plenty of people privately financing their own personal space programs. Richard Branson is already pretty close to realizing his space tourism business. If someone wants to put together a transportation system that can deliver a package up to a ton or so in weight anywhere in the world in under an hour, then okay. Maybe he has a market. If it is only good for dropping bombs, then the sanity test comes into play again.
As for bothering to do so during peacetime, you just have to look to what was done during the American revolution. Specifically, look at the not-so-small arms that were captured (a.k.a. stolen) from existing military installations.
In checking out the posts that happened while composing this, I feel compelled to add the following:
Underage persons are not free. Their parents have the rights to all their property as well as where they can and can't go.
Convicts are not free. State appointed guards and parole officers have effectively the same powers mentioned in the last category of people.
Insane people (once determined to be such) are not free. State appointed guardians and care givers have power over them.
Ex-convicts, as in people completely released from the custody of the state, should be considered free with ALL the rights of any other citizen. Otherwise, they should remain in the convict category, and have their lives controlled by an appropriate authority.
Last edited:
i do not belive in gun control period!!. laws that say you cannnot go on a shooting spree, shoot a person for no reason, felon cannot possess a firearm ect... are a given and just. if the government can have fully functional tanks, howitzers, flamthrowers and jet fighters we should be able to have them because we need the same kind of tools to fight the government if need be.
remember these people work for us and they need to be scared to screw over the american people!!!
remember these people work for us and they need to be scared to screw over the american people!!!
Last edited:
I'm looking for a bit more precision, here.
Back in the day,
What day? Pre-GCA1968? Pre-NFA1934? Pre-1920 (UK, especially)? Pre-Slave-codes? Pre-Civil War? Pre-US-BoR?
they advocated
Who is "they"?
violent felons
I can't think of any gun restrictions that differentiate felons from violent felons. Would that they did, those laws would be more acceptable.
and crazy people
Without getting into definitional issues (xf: Soviet gulags), I think that it was GCA68 made purchase of a gun from an FFL illegal for those with mental issues, though some states probably restricted using "suitablity" clases to prohibit guns to them.
An intersting court case might come up in a "free-state" (one that doesn't require permission to own a gun): Has a person suffering from schizophrenia been ever prosecuted for mere, non-threatening possession of a gun? Where would the abolutist Americans with Disabilties Act stand on that?
be barred from bearing arms.
Did you mean to limit your discussion to laws regarding carry, or were you using shorthand and implying keep and?
Anyway, a "back in the day" impression I have from watching too many Westerns, is that when a man was released from prison, his belongings were returned to him -- includeing his single-action revolver and holster.
Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Google it.
That's the definition of "back in the day".
Way too many people quote the BoR, especially the 2A without doing the rest of the research.
That's the definition of "back in the day".
Way too many people quote the BoR, especially the 2A without doing the rest of the research.
My "quick-n-dirty" rule with regard to what should or shouldn't be regulated is this:
Sound fair?
IOW, nukes, nerve gas, chemical agents, bunker bombs, etc. can be owned, but with some guidelines for storage.
Re: felons. Others have put it perfectly. If they are "safe" enough to be out of jail, they're "safe" enough to own guns.
Saying that they should be barred from owning guns imparts special powers to the firearm - this felon can drive a car, operate a chainsaw, or buy a razor-sharp hunting knife with no issues; but when it comes to guns we say, hey, they could hurt someone with that???
Makes no sense. Let them own guns. BUT... If they commit a crime with that gun, they go back in jail and re-serve their last sentence BEFORE they serve the new sentence...
Sound fair?
IOW, nukes, nerve gas, chemical agents, bunker bombs, etc. can be owned, but with some guidelines for storage.
Re: felons. Others have put it perfectly. If they are "safe" enough to be out of jail, they're "safe" enough to own guns.
Saying that they should be barred from owning guns imparts special powers to the firearm - this felon can drive a car, operate a chainsaw, or buy a razor-sharp hunting knife with no issues; but when it comes to guns we say, hey, they could hurt someone with that???
Makes no sense. Let them own guns. BUT... If they commit a crime with that gun, they go back in jail and re-serve their last sentence BEFORE they serve the new sentence...
Jay G, your idea on felons would possibly work, even though through history they thought differently. Only real problem is these days they ALL get out earlier than they should.
Funny thing is that we lock up the longest the folks least likely to commit a crime again. "Crime of passion" murder is almost always 1st degree, usually carries LONG sentences, yet, almost every case is a one time thing. They aren't the ones that bother me. Pedopgiles, rapists, armed robbers and such draw shorter sentences, and are very likely to re-offend.
Funny thing is that we lock up the longest the folks least likely to commit a crime again. "Crime of passion" murder is almost always 1st degree, usually carries LONG sentences, yet, almost every case is a one time thing. They aren't the ones that bother me. Pedopgiles, rapists, armed robbers and such draw shorter sentences, and are very likely to re-offend.
Some people may disagree, but I think all people who have never fired a gun should get some sort of training before getting a gun.
How to implement this without causing de-facto registration may be difficult.
How to implement this without causing de-facto registration may be difficult.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Nickle. The reason that it was never an issue before was that dangerous felons STAYED IN JAIL.
Someone who commits a violent home invasion resulting in serious injury to the homeowner would have likely seen the inside of a cell for 30+ years 50 years ago.
These days, what, 6-8 months, tops?
Isn't the average time served for murder something like 4-6 years?
Shouldn't that send up GIANT SCREAMING RED FLAGS?
Start. Keeping. These. Mutants. In. Jail.
Do that, watch the crime rate plummet...
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Hmm... an interesting point, and one, I think, that perfectly illustrates the need for some kind of community standard. As you say, improper storage of, say, a nuke can kill/injure your neighbors - and as my late father always used to say, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." I'd suggest that that could be a good rule of thumb in this case.
Hmm... sounds Libertarian. I always thought dad was a Democrat.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Well, the powers of the government are either granted to or derived from the people. Nothing can be granted that is not already possessed. Therefore, if there is no right of the people to possess these weapons, we cannot grant that right to our government.
We are a nation of laws, if you break the law (citizen or government) prosecution must be swift and sure.
So reasonable gun control is that there is essentially none.
We are a sad nation who has allowed our servant government to posses weapons (in such disproportionate capabilities) that would allow for the government to be able to declare marshal law against the people (the masters.) We are a nation designed such that all men can take up arms against any threat against our people. (This includes our own government)
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
We are a nation of laws, if you break the law (citizen or government) prosecution must be swift and sure.
So reasonable gun control is that there is essentially none.
We are a sad nation who has allowed our servant government to posses weapons (in such disproportionate capabilities) that would allow for the government to be able to declare marshal law against the people (the masters.) We are a nation designed such that all men can take up arms against any threat against our people. (This includes our own government)
I will go one better.
I think that everyone should have basic knowledge in the safe handling of firearms by the time they come of age.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Well, the powers of the government are either granted to or derived from the people. Nothing can be granted that is not already possessed. Therefore, if there is no right of the people to possess these weapons, we cannot grant that right to our government.
We are a nation of laws, if you break the law (citizen or government) prosecution must be swift and sure.
So reasonable gun control is that there is essentially none.
We are a sad nation who has allowed our servant government to posses weapons (in such disproportionate capabilities) that would allow for the government to be able to declare marshal law against the people (the masters.) We are a nation designed such that all men can take up arms against any threat against our people. (This includes our own government)
Very well put. I like the rationale you applied there. Ultimately the government is composed of citizenry endowed with the responsibility to help ensure our society runs like a well oiled machine and serve our purposes not their own. However when that government has the ability to pulverize its citizenry in the event of an uprising that is not good. The government is now its own uncontrolled entity and will likely implode at some point(or at least we can only hope).
I believe that the American CITIZEN should be allowed to arm himself to the equivalent of a US Soldier. Where I see the grey area coming into play is when you start talking about crew served weapons such as artillery pieces. Not saying I don't think someone should be allowed to have an artillery piece, just that I think it's a grey area as I see the most important aspect of the argument being that your average citizen be able to defend himself against your average soldier with a machine gun. Everything else can be debated without me personally caring which way it falls.
If 'They' can have it. I can have it. Period.
If 'They' can carry it loaded and strapped to their back. I can carry it loaded and strapped to my back. Period.
If the day comes that I have to protect myself from 'Them'. I should have the tools to do so. Period
If 'They' can carry it loaded and strapped to their back. I can carry it loaded and strapped to my back. Period.
If the day comes that I have to protect myself from 'Them'. I should have the tools to do so. Period
If this country was setup the way it was setup back in the colonial days I would say that individuals should be perfectly able to own any and all firearms or weapons that could be used by an individual. That would potentially include things such as RPG's and surface to air missiles. Mortars, heavy machine guns, tanks, etc.? - all of these are typically crew served weapons - and while I wouldn' necessarily say they should be banned from personal ownership - I think the more appropriate ownership for such weapons would be with the militia - and not the National Guard - but the REAL militia which is the unorganized militia. Park the tank down at the town DPW shed and keep the mortars, heavy machine guns and artillery and such in the town hall basement. It's not that I don't think that weapons such as these necessarily should be banned from personal ownership - it's that heavy weapons like this typically cost MUCH more money than "personal" weapons - so their ownership is more appropriate to a group and not an individual.
From what I have read - I like the Swiss model. Everybody is in the militia - and keeps their personal firearm at home. Anything else is distributed around the country so it is easily accessible to the militia when they are activated.
And no - a properly fought guerilla war would not necessarily lead to us all being "cut down". Would we suffer heavy losses ? Most likely. Would that directly lead to defeat? No. Read more about who guerilla wars get fought. They usually do create huge losses for the revolutionaries - that does not always mean defeat though. The Vietnamese lost millions of people - but in the end we gave up and left. So they won by default.
Unfortunately the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers contain very little useful information regarding the first ten amendments. They are simply articles that were written to support (Federalist) or oppose (Anti-Federalist) the new constitution and the powers that were being granted to the new government. They were written in the period immediately following the convention. Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the articles that we refer to as the Federalist Papers and writers that signed their work as Brutus, Federal Farmer, Cato and a few others wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers.
If anyone wants to research the original intent of the Second Amendment as well as the other amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights I would recommend the following:
1) The debates at the ratifying conventions of all the states.
2) George Mason’s master draft of a Bill of Rights which is almost the same as Virginia’s that he also wrote.
3) James Madison’s proposed amendments that he offered in Congress.
4) Debates on the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives.
5) The proposed amendments reported by the Select Committee.
6) The proposed amendments passed by the House of Representatives.
7) The proposed amendments passed by the Senate.
If you research the above items in the order that I have listed them you will easily understand what was intended in the final draft of twelve amendments that was proposed to Congress and the ten amendments that were adopted. Those ten became known as the Bill of Rights.
Similar threads
