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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultimate Shield said:
This thread is going Full Retard fast...

IMO the 2A should only apply to commonly held arms that soldiers have general access to. (arms meaning guns and only guns) There should be sensible laws in place that, should one be deemed unsuitable through due process, then that is that. Locke them up or put them in a nut house till they are deemed otherwise. Certainly a much more complicated issue, and as I said earlier our justice system needs an enema, but that is the rough gist of it.
RPG's? Nukes? are you ****ing kidding me?!?! Some of you guys seriously need to take another look at what you're saying as it's getting legitimately concerning.
Click to expand...

No, NO "sensible" laws. The right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, period. "Common sense" laws is the new buzzword that the communists are using to try to take away your rights.
If you don't want completely unrestricted ownership of firearms, you haven't been paying attention and you are part of the problem.
The unsuitability crap is completely unconstitutional and offensive.
I have zero issue with anyone who wants to buy one going down to the local hardward store (or logging onto Amazon) and buying an RPG. I would have a couple hanging on the wall if they were readily available. I'm undecided about the nuke thing, as I haven't put that much thought into it.
 
atilla said:
i would throw the best parties ever if at the end of the night/early morning we celebrated the end of our festivities with a low-yield thermonuclear explosion.
Click to expand...

Dennis Rodman and his Elvis haired little buddy do this in N. Korea!
 
Good thread. Cudo's to the mods for letting it ride and for most keeping it civil so it doesn't get shut down.
I've seen many threads get shut down when they could be interesting without being over the top.

To the op regarding your mental illness requirement statement.
Where exactly would they stop?
What safeguards could be imposed to keep them from abusing the power?
This is the problem with any laws they try to impose on the 2A.
Any time we suggest they want a gun grab, we get called delusional and paranoid when history is currently being written
by lawmakers going for more ridiculous restrictions all the time.
They will never stop and every inch we give will end in a mile being taken.
 
the bottom line in my opinion is this. murder and mass murder are against the law already and people who commit these crimes should prosecuted. the item or object they use is irrelevent. so banning items and objects hoping to prevent murder is stupid and doesn't stop murder. i believe our founding fathers looked at arms this way thats why they wrote our 2a right shall not be infringed. The costitution is a document that limits government it was not writen to put limits on the people. this is what people keep forgeting. people should be able to own what ever they want.
 
mke0039 said:
THIS! This ridiculous law actually aides in ripping us off too! A true success by State House standards
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you think this. If ammunition could be mail ordered, then mentally unstable people in this state could by ammunition, people like Lanza who you were railing against. Our state makes sure we are safe by only letting us buy ammunition with our permission card that requires a mental background check. You should be happy, friend.
 
IvIax said:
223 years ago, people don't have RPG or anti tank weapons.
Click to expand...

223 years ago when they wrote the Constitution people owned EXACTLY the same weapons as the military. Just because better things have been invented doesn't mean we shouldn't own them.
The second amendment was put in place to guarantee the PEOPLE the right to revolt against a oppressive government.


P.S. Tell Marsh I said FOAD.
 
The only one we need is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
In God We Trust said:
I should be able to walk into sears and buy a suitcase nuke. Shall not be infringed and all.
Click to expand...

Your avatar says in God we trust, not in you having nukes we trust. No nukes. Perhaps you nuke lovers think you should have agent orange as well! Now I know what my dad meant when he said lord, what's this world coming to.
 
M60 said:
Your avatar says in God we trust, not in you having nukes we trust. No nukes. Perhaps you nuke lovers think you should have agent orange as well! Now I know what my dad meant when he said lord, what's this world coming to.
Click to expand...

agent orange is a defoliant, it's not specifically weaponized. just sayin'.

if god didn't want us to have nukes he wouldn't have given us oppenheimer.
 
white feather said:
And the OP's little square is still green... [popcorn]
Legal disclaimer: I have never posted negative feedback for anyone and my statement does not advocate for others to neg rep the op... [smile]
Click to expand...

No NES member with a brain that functions correctly would post negative feedback because they disagree with someones opinion.
 
white feather said:
Yep,started with the first post and continues on the 201st..[rolleyes]
"sensible laws"
"deemed unsuitable"
You forgot "for the children" [sad2]
Click to expand...

too many wannabees:
wannabe Judge
wannabe jury
wannabe executioner
wannabe policy writers for the masses
wannabe decision makers
wannabe nuke owners
wannabe entitled to infringe on the safety of others in the name of self protection.
wannabe Carlos Hathcock
 
M60 said:
too many wannabees:
wannabe Judge
wannabe jury
wannabe executioner
wannabe policy writers for the masses
wannabe decision makers
wannabe nuke owners
wannabe entitled to infringe on the safety of others in the name of self protection.
wannabe Carlos Hathcock
Click to expand...

You forgot wannabe serf.
 
M60 said:
too many wannabees:
wannabe Judge
wannabe jury
wannabe executioner
wannabe policy writers for the masses
wannabe decision makers
wannabe nuke owners
wannabe entitled to infringe on the safety of others in the name of self protection.
wannabe Carlos Hathcock
Click to expand...

i am curious, and i just asked someone pretty much this same question in another thread, too...

what makes you think that your opinion as to what your countrymen own, or how and what you wish to regulate matters? who are you to place restrictions on your fellow man? why are you above me, why do your personal feelings trump the second amendment for me?

as an aside i honestly can't believe that we're having the nuke discussion in here (again). it's straight up ridiculous. even if joe six pack could purchase a nuclear weapon it would be incredibly cost-prohibitive. a minuteman III is estimated at a cost of $50,000,000. even if magpul started making them you're looking at a double digit million dollar price tag.

i'd be saving my pennies.
 
Face it, liberal nutjobs live among us.....if we accept their restrictions then we condone them. The struggle between those that aim to restrict our rights vs. those that value their rights will go on indefinitely
 
kalash said:
IBTL. This will get ugly quickly. We had a discussion like that about sarin gas once with many NESers saying you should be able to buy barrels of it at Home Depot.

Personally, I'm ok with full-auto and with grenades (because a substitute in the form of a Molotov cocktail is readily available), but that's where I draw the line. With legal/licensing stuff my response would be much longer.
Click to expand...

This gets ugly - because (there's no better way of saying it) - some people are just damn ignorant.

Sarin gas - is not a "defensive" weapon. Neither are most of the other weapons that liberals try to get their knickers all in a twist about every time somebody tries to defend the Second Amendment. A nuclear bomb is not a defensive weapon that one person could legitimately posses. Neither is Sarin gas. Neither is a howitzer. Or maybe even a grenade launcher.

I believe the original intent of the second amendment - was to enable INDIVIDUALS - to own defensive weaponry of such a fashion that they could defend THEMSELVES - or their country (if they were in a militia). You could potentially argue that cannons, and grenade launchers and Sarin gas and nuclear bombs ARE defensive weapons, and you'd be correct - in certain military circumstances - but if you look down thru military history those weapons are most usually use offensively.

The second amendment was also put in there specifically because of prior knowledge of English history - where the king removed ALL weaponry from the hands of his subjects. And what followed right after that - was tyrannical rule by the king.

I don't think people really do the cause of gun rights any favors when they start arguing that the 2nd amendment should allow the posession of sarin gas or nuclear weapons - or cannons.

Saying that it allows the possession of any sort of "personal" firearm up to and including machine guns though - is perfectly in line with it's original intent IMHO.
 
atilla said:
even if joe six pack could purchase a nuclear weapon it would be incredibly cost-prohibitive. a minuteman III is estimated at a cost of $50,000,000. even if magpul started making them you're looking at a double digit million dollar price tag.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be a fancy schmancy missile. A nice briefcase tactical, or even just a nice dirty bomb. A little bit of non-fissile radioactive material and some tannerite, a few gallons of gasoline for the mushroom effect and ya got yourself that partay!
 
M60 said:
No NES member with a brain that functions correctly would post negative feedback because they disagree with someones opinion.
Click to expand...
[rofl][laugh2]
funny-quote-sarcasm-advanced.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What kind of Beretta 1934 is this?
Replies
3
Views
228
67ray
67ray
What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Coyote33
Coyote33
Moving Out of MA - What Items Would You Buy?
2 3 4
Replies
105
Views
2K
slap shot
slap shot
Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
3K
fencer
fencer
Mexico is suing US gun manufacturers because its strict gun laws don’t deter crime.
Replies
6
Views
225
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom