Curiosity: What is "Acceptable Gun Control"?

[pipmaster1971]

I guess like that judge who said he knows porn when he sees it, most people know weapons that shouldn't be owned by folks when they see them.

Although, as a Libertarian, I think any weapon that the government can own should also be allowed for the citizens I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling very uncomfortable with nuclear, biological or chemical in the hands of my neighbors.

I guess the distinction should be something along the lines of would a "reasonable person" assume the weapon is harmful to an innocent third party when used as intended. A gun isn't (i.e. the risk to a by-stander from proper use is minimal), a nuclear weapon is (i.e it'll vaporize a city).

However, I think that calsdad has perhaps got a valid point WRT this issue.

 

[K-DUB]

The gun is an inanimate object that is controlled by the human holding it. Real gun control is hitting your target! What gun control has become is a farse. The gun is not the problem. The crimes that are comitted with a gun are already illegal (ie: robbery, murder, etc...). Gun control is just a feel good way for the commies to gain control of the unarmed populace & keep them compliant without them (sheeple) noticing.

Citizens should be able to own whatever small arms they can handle & afford, as long as they're not using them in crimes (real crimes, not paperwork errors or licensing issues). If the .gov can have it, so can we. Nuclear is a little hard for one person to handle, so I don't think that is included in 2A.

 

[HTRN]

The gun is an inanimate object that is controlled by the human holding it. Real gun control is hitting your target! What gun control has become is a farse. The gun is not the problem. The crimes that are comitted with a gun are already illegal (ie: robbery, murder, etc...). Gun control is just a feel good way for the commies to gain control of the unarmed populace & keep them compliant without them (sheeple) noticing.

Citizens should be able to own whatever small arms they can handle & afford, as long as they're not using them in crimes (real crimes, not paperwork errors or licensing issues). If the .gov can have it, so can we. Nuclear is a little hard for one person to handle, so I don't think that is included in 2A.

+10000

 

[fubar]

Back up people ... up there before the Bill of Rights , to US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 :

" To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "

( Letter of Marque:
Archaic. A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure. )

Seems to me the writers of the Constitution - Before the BOR - assumed and expected anyone who could afford one could outfit themselves with warships. So how about we draw the limit at things one needs to outfit a fighting vessel ?

M134 Electric machine Guns ?
Surface to to surface missiles ?
helicopter gunships ?

I am only half kidding.

 

[MagnumAl]

I consider weapons that can actually be kept, fired and maintained by an individual are what is discussed, ie: infantry weapons.

And the occasional armed schooner.

 

[HTRN]

fubar,

It appears that you are confused. Until your post, no one has made mention of waging war.

However, if you read the federalist papers, it is abundantly clear that the 2a is designed such that EVERYONE able, be armed and well trained (well-regulated)

This is to not only protect the individual, the sovereignty of the country but also to protect the people from a government that has become unfit for service to the people.

Thus, the 2A in no way restricts the type, shape, "evil features" or intended purpose of arms.

One objective is that the government shall not be able to "out gun" the people, else we will fall to enslavement by said government.

the ONLY REASONABLE GUN CONTROL IS NONE.

Lets take this to the imaginary world that the looine libs would like...

No Guns (Except of course those owned and used by the government, it agents and agency) would murders end? Nope, kitchen knives, chainsaws, poison, bows, sharp sticks, string, pillows etc. are all quite lethal. (I argue that the bow is the most dangerous weapon for anonymous murder, more so than a firearm)

Now, that crime is at an all time high, because people cannot defend themselves, big government steps in to control every aspect of your life.
We (humans) don't like to be enslaved so some groups get together to fight the government, they mow those people down because only they and the criminals are properly armed. Then what? Where do we go?

Take the same scenario and apply it to banning all but single shot hunting arms. You get the same result, again the people are out gunned.

 

[codenamepaul]

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.

Not at all. I attended my hunter safety course in gym class. Gun safety-same way.

 

[doobie]

"The only real gun control is being able to hit your target."

"Gun control only subverts lawful citizens from protecting themselves from criminals and an unruly government."

 

[Mass-diver]

Antis love to through out the nuke question ("I suppose you think everyone should own a nuclear bomb too.") For, the "arms" refers to firearms, I support the right of every adult, American to own any firearm/small arms weapon, this would include automatic weapons/machine, but would preclude missiles/bombs/mines/etc.

Anyone who commits a crime with any firearm should face very harsh penalties and all felons (who have shown themselves unworthy of following society's rules) should be barred from ownership.

 

[fubar]

fubar,

It appears that you are confused. Until your post, no one has made mention of waging war.

However, if you read the federalist papers, it is abundantly clear that the 2a is designed such that EVERYONE able, be armed and well trained (well-regulated)

This is to not only protect the individual, the sovereignty of the country but also to protect the people from a government that has become unfit for service to the people.

Thus, the 2A in no way restricts the type, shape, "evil features" or intended purpose of arms.

One objective is that the government shall not be able to "out gun" the people, else we will fall to enslavement by said government.

the ONLY REASONABLE GUN CONTROL IS NONE.

Lets take this to the imaginary world that the looine libs would like...

No Guns (Except of course those owned and used by the government, it agents and agency) would murders end? Nope, kitchen knives, chainsaws, poison, bows, sharp sticks, string, pillows etc. are all quite lethal. (I argue that the bow is the most dangerous weapon for anonymous murder, more so than a firearm)

Now, that crime is at an all time high, because people cannot defend themselves, big government steps in to control every aspect of your life.
We (humans) don't like to be enslaved so some groups get together to fight the government, they mow those people down because only they and the criminals are properly armed. Then what? Where do we go?

Take the same scenario and apply it to banning all but single shot hunting arms. You get the same result, again the people are out gunned.

I am not confused. I would like to be able to toss my LTC/A , and go down to Sears or Dillon Aero and order up some full auto goodness , if I felt like it.

In the event that our .gov asked me to help out because I just so happened to have a private warship for plinking and collecting I might say okay.

Or not.

My point is : The 2nd Ammendment was intended to allow me as a private citizen to own an M16 instead of an AR15 , ... and any other military grade weapon I was able to afford and as long as I don't do anything criminal with it ( trigger lock on my M-60 ? ) then I should be left alone.