In general, what kind of gun law do we want?

[wahsben]

This! Gun control only creates an imbalance of power that favors tyrants, criminals and madmen.

No it is quite simple actually.

None.

 

[wahsben]

I am strongly against, firearm roster list, or mag ban...silly stuff. But I do think a criminal background or mental medical history check is necessary.

Criminals don't abide by the law.Who decides whom is mentally ill and who can own what and what person or govt. agency can be trusted with that decision?
When the RKBA is not infringed upon the amount of armed good people outnumber the amount of armed bad people and when those intent on causing murder & mayhem act up the problem will be dealt with immediately.

 

[Gak44]

I would say as a first step, to repeal the Gun control act or law from 1968. Or you could go back to when it first started with the 1934 law.

 

[wahsben]

223 years ago, people don't have RPG or anti tank weapons.

They had black powder & cannons.

 

[M60]

With all due respect M60, if you replace "arm" with "hunting rifle" and "nuke" with "AR", you have the Fudd argument. Replace "arm" with "phones to call 911" and "nuke" with "gun", and you have the hard core anti argument. Sorry to be an absolutist, but you believe in individual sovereignty and liberty vs. Statism or you don't.

Especially read your last statement replacing nuke with gun.

Answer to OP is None.

Ok. We all seem to agree that thinking about nuke ownership is silly. You cant yank out the word gun, insert the word nuke and say that all of the same principals apply. Theoretically at least when you fire a gun at a specific target, you hit one target. On the other hand and again theoretically, when you fire a nuke at a specific target, you hit zillions of targets, both intended and not intended. You'll never convince me that you should be allowed to own weapons that hit unintended targets in order to hit the intended target, or that's it's morally ok, or should be legally ok for you to do so. With all do respect to you sir, your position is not in the least bit well thought out. The outcome in your theory is just to all negatively encompassing regarding nukes.

 

[browncoat]

Ok. We all seem to agree that thinking about nuke ownership is silly. You cant yank out the word gun, insert the word nuke and say that all of the same principals apply. Theoretically at least when you fire a gun at a specific target, you hit one target. On the other hand and again theoretically, when you fire a nuke at a specific target, you hit zillions of targets, both intended and not intended. You'll never convince me that you should be allowed to own weapons that hit unintended targets in order to hit the intended target, or that's it's morally ok, or should be legally ok for you to do so. With all do respect to you sir, your position is not in the least bit well thought out. The outcome in your theory is just to all negatively encompassing regarding nukes.

So like virtually any gun then, especially stuff like 50 BMG? You really should move to Cali bro, you'd fit right in.

 

[drgrant]

The whole nuke thing just makes the discussion absurd; it's not any different then when gay marriage opponents start talking about people marrying their dogs... its so far beyond the pale that it's not really relevant. You might as well be talking about what you're going to do with money you won from the powerball lottery.. it's more plausible.

 

[Glockster30]

Sorry nuke owner wannabes - there are Nuke Free Zones

 

[namedpipes]

What law would have prevented what happened in Newtown?

 

[calsdad]

I love how one of the arguments against the 2A (that I've heard), is that civilians couldn't make a stand against the might of a modern military because they are just so much better armed. Yet, why are our arms so inferior? Because of the infringement of our rights.

That whole line of argument is bullshit. Anybody who makes it is basically trying to argue that we should give up our rights proactively - because the government has become so powerful that they will just take them away thru violent action anyway.

People who make that argument have a serious screw loose in their heads with the line of logic.

My interpretation is that they're trying to appease government power and evil - by trying to hide from it. I'm pretty sure there's a whole bunch of survivors of the Nazi death camps who have told us that that type of behavior just does not work.

 

[kalash]

Clearly the nuke argument is not absurd since we are arguing about it. If we agreed that private ownership of nuclear warheads is a ridiculous idea, then we'd move on to fighter jets, apaches, tanks, etc. But seeing as some of you still think we should have weapons that can kill tens of millions at once, I guess we can't move on.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Clearly the nuke argument is not absurd since we are arguing about it. If we agreed that private ownership of nuclear warheads is a ridiculous idea, then we'd move on to fighter jets, apaches, tanks, etc. But seeing as some of you still think we should have weapons that can kill tens of millions at once, I guess we can't move on.

NES nuke group buy?... but in all seriousness you do realize fighter jets, tanks, etc. are already in private hands... You can own them. Hell an FA/18 Super hornet sold on ebay for 18 mill just a few years ago. If you've got the loot - I say have at it.

 

[atilla]

Clearly the nuke argument is not absurd since we are arguing about it. If we agreed that private ownership of nuclear warheads is a ridiculous idea, then we'd move on to fighter jets, apaches, tanks, etc. But seeing as some of you still think we should have weapons that can kill tens of millions at once, I guess we can't move on.

a nuclear weapon has never killed tens of millions at once in the entire history of humanity.

one might argue however that government as a whole spanning all the nations on the planet would definitely be close to your figure however.

 

[warwickben]

Clearly the nuke argument is not absurd since we are arguing about it. If we agreed that private ownership of nuclear warheads is a ridiculous idea, then we'd move on to fighter jets, apaches, tanks, etc. But seeing as some of you still think we should have weapons that can kill tens of millions at once, I guess we can't move on.

Aren't there people who own fighter jets all ready ?

 

[M60]

NES nuke group buy?... but in all seriousness you do realize fighter jets, tanks, etc. are already in private hands... You can own them. Hell an FA/18 Super hornet sold on ebay for 18 mill just a few years ago. If you've got the loot - I say have at it.

Any guns or ammo on board those ebay toys?

 

[atilla]

Any guns or ammo on board those ebay toys?

nope.

THANKS, ATF.

yes, there is government regulation for arms on planes. there's a restored P51 complete with machine guns which has to be neutered before every flight.

 

[calsdad]

"small arms couldn't stand against the might of a modern military" When they use that line on me, I start talking about 5,000 "insurgents" in Iraq against our modern military of 150,000 and ask them how many soldiers would be required to fight 5,000,000 insurgents, and how they think that the people would deal with the US Army bombing US cities to weed out the insurgents.

Also tossed in frequently are things like "Why then did we send small arms to Libya, and how did that work? Why are they talking about arming Syrians? How about the Kurds begging for some arms?"

There are about 700,000 cops in the US and a military of a million two and reserves of 200k and guard of 500K giving a total of 2.6 million total armed forces, plus maybe another 500K(?) of armed feds. So 3 million paid armed forces. If all of them fought on the government side, how many would be needed to protect civilian infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, internet, roads, food distribution)? How many to protect government itself in all the states and in DC? How many to protect their own installations and depots? How many to protect chemical plants and refineries and nuclear plants?

Then how many would be available to fight?

The "small arms couldn't stand against the might of a modern military" is the most ridiculous and easily debunked argument and actually is great fodder for changing minds when spouted by the ignorant and not the ideological.

There is a surprising number of people right here on NES who have made that argument -over and over and over again.

Which is why I think a very large amount of gun owners - really don't understand guns at all. Since they obviously have absolutely no comprehension of what a gun is capable of - and who humans use guns for self defense and warfare.

Last time I checked - it's common knowledge in the military - among the ground forces at least - that it REQURES "boots on the ground" - to take and hold territory. It's been this way since humans fought other humans. And I don't see anything changing about that any time soon.

Which means that the right to bear arms in defense against an out of control government - still is relevant. What has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq - and now in Syria - just proves the point - yet again. It was also proved in Vietnam. But because that's past history - the ignorant just ignore it and say stupid shit like " things have changed" - no matter how many times history proves that it hasn't.

 

[willbdavis]

I believe it is the human wielding the object and not the inanimate object itself that determines whether or not something is a "weapon."

You can give me a tank, a fighter jet or a even a nuke, and I still won't so much as hold up the local convenience store.

Some people, on the other hand, are intent upon terrorizing their fellow humans by whatever means necessary. I have a nephew who can't be trusted with so much as a toothbrush. But rather than punish the well intentioned and peaceful members of society I think people like my nephew should be held accountable for their actions and be removed from society.

 

[Squire]

It's the principle that there is a limit to Freedom because of the potential danger inherent in it. Reasonable, practical, sensible limits are all valid points of view, but I disagree philosophically with them all. It's a slippery slope that has the most powerful WMD's on one extreme and fists on the other. If you concede a part of the extreme end, then you are willing to be convinced that something toward the other end is so dangerous it needs to be banned. I'll only agree to change my answer to the OP from None to laws that Governments are also bound to.

 

[kalash]

You should always avoid extreme ends of any spectrum.

 

[M60]

So like virtually any gun then, especially stuff like 50 BMG? You really should move to Cali bro, you'd fit right in.

There's just no talking with some people. They just don't get it.
FYI. I did live in Cali for a while. When I was there, the only Woodstock we knew was on our M14's and your right. I did fit right in!

 

[willbdavis]

There's just no talking with some people. They just don't get it.
FYI. I did live in Cali for a while. When I was there, the only Woodstock we knew was on our M14's and your right. I did fit right in!

Most of California is normal and well-adjusted. Sadly the urban centers ensure only true nut bags are elected to public office.

 

[Squire]

You should always avoid extreme ends of any spectrum.

Who gets to define what is extreme? To many Americans, ARs are too extreme, and scary, foreign made AKs even more so.

 

[Roy Rogers]

The question for the OP is: how do YOU propose to preserve your liberty and freedom?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[browncoat]

There's just no talking with some people. They just don't get it.
FYI. I did live in Cali for a while. When I was there, the only Woodstock we knew was on our M14's and your right. I did fit right in!

I don't get it? I quoted exactly what you said. Virtually every handgun and rifle round fits what you described. If someone is in the middle of the desert by themselves, you could use an RPG on them with less risk than using a 22 on someone in a crowded shopping mall. If that isn't what you meant, please explain.

 

[Jason Flare]

If you choose to have a nuke, shouldn't you be taught how to use it? Whenever I buy a gun from a shop they offer to show me it's operation and nukes are just a bit more complicated.

When you show up at a university with $50 million dollars and ask a nuclear physicist to build a bomb for you he's sure to brief you on the ins and outs of ownership.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

The question for the OP is: how do YOU propose to preserve your liberty and freedom?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

By asking for laws the strip liberty and freedom.

 

[M60]

When you show up at a university with $50 million dollars and ask a nuclear physicist to build a bomb for you he's sure to brief you on the ins and outs of ownership.

Christ. A briefing to own and operate a nuke!

 

[PaulD]

OP, you need to pursue this intellectual exercise and get back to us.

First, go read up on and fully understand "Strict Scrutiny".

Next, go read up on the various, relevant SCOTUS decisions on 2A issues. I'll make it easy for you: Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Heller, McDonald. Make sure you read them correctly.

Third, go investigate the various federal level gun control legislation that is in effect. NFA, GCA, FOPA, AWB.

Fourth, investigate the totality of state level gun control legislation in effect and the trends in that area. Odds are good you live in CT or MA if you're here, so it should be easy.

Finally, get back to us on how effective any of these have been.

The argument at this point should not be what we'd accept. When one wants to go through an exercise of organization and cleaning, if things are so far gone, you first have to completely clear out the space you're trying to clean/organize. When all this bulls**t stops getting rammed down our throats, maybe at that point we can talk about something that might be acceptable (go back to step one on that).

 

[M60]

I don't get it? I quoted exactly what you said. Virtually every handgun and rifle round fits what you described. If someone is in the middle of the desert by themselves, you could use an RPG on them with less risk than using a 22 on someone in a crowded shopping mall. If that isn't what you meant, please explain.

I meant that nuclear weapons cannot be used with any level of precision. You may hit the intended but you'll probably hit your children and mine in the schoolyard as well.