What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? - Page 7

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 7 of 7)

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:21:45 AM EDT

[#1]

Bush's Baked Beans....

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:28:57 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
For a private citizen it sould be anything that one person can operate.

Private Militias (set up like CMP clubs) should be able to have any non-NBC weapon out there.

I limit the big stuff to militias only due to the facilties and training needed to use them safely.

Quoting my self here, It seems this has been looked over.

I think this is the best set up and works kind of like the militias of the revolution and early US, but with a little regulation.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:36:24 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Probably a .38 and a 10/22 ... that's all.

BigDozer66

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:48:45 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.
Dude, WTF? You sound like one of the goons at the Brady website. Based on what you said, why not just say poor people can't have guns? Why not just make it a law saying that all guns are worth $500? If you sell a gun for less then you go to jail. Your idea sucks and is an elitist snoob position that only makes you feel good, but such legislation wouldn't do jack shit to prevent or curb crime.

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

Yes, since for no reason at all the local Chief LEO can refuse to sign the form. Any time I have to ask permission when I have no past history to show a criminal tendency, that is wrong. If they would sign every form they got presented after doing the required checks, then fine. The problem is too many just say no without looking into it. Even if they were $300, the LEO could still say no. They've done it before - and they'll continue to do it.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:05:20 AM EDT

[#5]

I think from the text of the second amendment, you have a right to own any small arms. It has to be something an infantryman could carry (keep and bear arms). If you don't need a jeep to tow it, it is protected.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:09:50 AM EDT

[#6]

An Honest Civilian (I describe that as one who would pass a NICS check) should be able to own any armament system on the planet EXCEPT: Nukes and their delivery systems AND Bio/Chem warfare weapons and their delivery systems, AND all non-shoulder-fired missile systems.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:11:18 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I think from the text of the second amendment, you have a right to own any small arms. It has to be something an infantryman could carry (keep and bear arms). If you don't need a jeep to tow it, it is protected.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum... when the Second was written, civvies owned cannon loaded ships. If you can afford it, have a place to store it safely, and it isn't hurting your neighbors directly? Go for it. If you own a deep water port dock, have 'em build the USS (your name here) aircraft carrier. If you own a few tens of thousands of acers and want to set up your own tank and arty range... go for it. Into planes? If you can afford the prices tag, try taking a F-22 for a spin.

If you applied your logic to the First Amendment, people shouldn't have access to computers and typewriters, but should be restricted to paper and pencil.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:18:42 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I think from the text of the second amendment, you have a right to own any small arms. It has to be something an infantryman could carry (keep and bear arms). If you don't need a jeep to tow it, it is protected.

How do you explain all the tanks and armored vehicles in private hands then?

Small arms were the ONLY arms back then. Even naval militias had ships with cannons.

I think my solution allows everything with reasonable restrictions:

Small Arms: You can own any firearm without restrictions on type or carry method.
Cannons: You can own any large caliber artillery type weapon without restrictions for use with non exploding ammo (penetrator rounds from an Abrams would be ok, but not heat)

With a license: You can own exploding ordinance for said cannons or for missile systems; this is a one time renewable licence not a per round registration

Missiles: You can own any missile system that uses a human to guide the weapon to the target; no autonomous or beam riding missiles; must be a man in the loop; possible allow for autonomous guided missiles with a seperate license

Everything sells at market price. Market price will dictate a Abrams will cost 4 to 5 million and you will still not get USGI spec armor, probably just export levels. Classified stuff is still classified and civilians can own it. However you can't export weapons without US Gov approval.

In reality this will only have affect on FA/SBR's and concealed carry. Bigger stuff no one will be able to afford unless they are millionaires so its not a probablem with "criminals" getting them. Got a spare 20,000 dollars for a mortar? Didn't think so.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:48:08 AM EDT

[#9]

I kinda draw the line at crew-served / individually carried.

So, M203 would be good, but a mortar, probably not.

Posted: 1/16/2006 8:51:36 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
[If you applied your logic to the First Amendment, people shouldn't have access to computers and typewriters, but should be restricted to paper and pencil.

Not weighing in on either side of this debate, but........Back in the early days of the film industry they actually tried to apply that standard, saying that because film wasn't around in the 18th century it wasn't protected under the 1st.

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:07:05 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think from the text of the second amendment, you have a right to own any small arms. It has to be something an infantryman could carry (keep and bear arms). If you don't need a jeep to tow it, it is protected.

How do you explain all the tanks and armored vehicles in private hands then?

Almost all of those tanks amd APC's have inoperable main guns or semi-only MG's. Otherwise they have NFA weapons and DD licenses.

Very few of them are 100% the way they came from the factory.

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:13:36 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I kinda draw the line at crew-served / individually carried.

So, M203 would be good, but a mortar, probably not.

So you're saying it's okay for me to blow you up with a 40mm grenade but not a mortar?

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:17:16 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I kinda draw the line at crew-served / individually carried.

So, M203 would be good, but a mortar, probably not.

Why if you have the cash to buy a mortar and rounds, your likely a productive member of society and no inclined to crime.

Besides under my proposal you'd need a license to own explosive rounds.

Why are you drawing a line? The whole point of the 2A is to protect citizens from the government. You can't do that in the modern day without at the very least crew served weapons, rockets etc.

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:44:29 AM EDT

[#14]

Lets see......

Ohio Class Nuclear sub

Armed with 24 Trident II, ICBM

or

A Death Star..

This is getting tougher everyday..

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:50:22 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Why if you have the cash to buy a mortar and rounds, your likely a productive member of society and no inclined to crime.

Drug cartels have plenty of $$ to buy whatever arms they wanted if this stuff was all legalized,and THEY are hardly productive members of society.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:06:47 AM EDT

[#16]

Atomic Annie shouldn't be in private hands...anything less, go for it!

Atomic Annie

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:18:55 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Why if you have the cash to buy a mortar and rounds, your likely a productive member of society and no inclined to crime.

Drug cartels have plenty of $$ to buy whatever arms they wanted if this stuff was all legalized,and THEY are hardly productive members of society.

Drug cartels buy the stuff anyhow. Someone had mentioned earlier that it is no longer foreign governments we have to worry about, but groups, like AQ, I think the cartels fall into that category. I have no idea where these groups get their arms from, or any rebel/drug/militia/whatever groups for that matter, but it is most likely not from the normal distribution channels.
I actually like the analogy that we should be as well armed as our soldiers are. The CMP type club for bigger toys is also a good idea.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:21:55 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Drug cartels buy the stuff anyhow.

Of course, but if you go and deregulate the possession of all armament, therss nothing you can go after these guys for, and they clearly are not possessing this stuff for any reason other than to further their own criminal enterprises and prevent their being taken into custody.

The point was made that if you have the $$ to buy the stuff, you are automatically somehow a law-abiding guy. Gangs and cartels show that thats not the case.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:47:03 AM EDT

[#19]

C-4

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:53:55 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug cartels buy the stuff anyhow.

Of course, but if you go and deregulate the possession of all armament, therss nothing you can go after these guys for, and they clearly are not possessing this stuff for any reason other than to further their own criminal enterprises and prevent their being taken into custody.

The point was made that if you have the $$ to buy the stuff, you are automatically somehow a law-abiding guy. Gangs and cartels show that thats not the case.

Drug cartels buy houses, manufacturing equipment, supplies, chemicals, boats, planes, cars, all legally and use them in illegal manners too. Should we restrict the sale of everything that one can use for illegal purposes?

Anyone can buy fertilizer and diesel fuel still, and anyone can buy gasoline, oxygen, acetylene, various other compressed gasses, gun powder, black powder, fuse, knives, machetes, and so on as well, all of which can be misused.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:56:17 AM EDT

[#21]

To my thinking, any weapon that has a point of aim type type sighting arrangement, then I'm cool with it. This essentially means that the weapon is meant for engaging discriminate targets. Seems like a simple enough way to let us Walter Mitty types get our thrills without worrying that our next door neighbor has a vial of Sarin or a loaded cluster bomb in his garage.

Dave

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:56:52 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Drug cartels buy houses, manufacturing equipment, supplies, chemicals, boats, planes, cars, all legally and use them in illegal manners too. Should we restrict the sale of everything that one can use for illegal purposes?

Anyone can buy fertilizer and diesel fuel still, and anyone can buy gasoline, oxygen, acetylene, various other compressed gasses, gun powder, black powder, fuse, knives, machetes, and so on as well, all of which can be misused.

And all of those things can be taken away from the bad guys courtesy of RICO, when the case is made against them.

Many of the things we are talking about in this thread are strictly offensive in nature, unlike the substances and products you mention. Not to mention that the lethality of nerve gas, nukes and soem ofr the other stuff being talked about is many times more whatever you just listed.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:58:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug cartels buy the stuff anyhow.

Of course, but if you go and deregulate the possession of all armament, therss nothing you can go after these guys for, and they clearly are not possessing this stuff for any reason other than to further their own criminal enterprises and prevent their being taken into custody.

The point was made that if you have the $$ to buy the stuff, you are automatically somehow a law-abiding guy. Gangs and cartels show that thats not the case.

Not quite. You'd still have to do a nics check to get them. Besides how many times to cops "run the numbers" when you have a gun? Do you think a purchase of 25 abrams tanks will go un-noticed?

How about trying and get them for the drug trafficing instead of BS charges!

Besides even if they got them, using them against people is the crime, not the tool.

I don't see a problem with this. If you can't export the weapons, what is the problem? Use them in the US, the National Guard would be on you in no time. Yes SOME groups could buy some high end weapons, but even then, not a lot and it would be rare enough to track down if one group start doing something bad with them.

I'm willing to take the risk to live free, I guess you are not.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:01:06 AM EDT

[#24]

I have gotten over my fear of the General Public owning machine guns.

I have gotten to the point that people should be able to own any projectile thrower they want.

I still have qualms about letting anyone buy high explosive ammunition though. Target practice rounds only for the cannon, mortars, and grenade launchers. HE ammo causes too much secondary damage for use against criminals in most cases (if you own a ranch on the Mexican border you might get away with it, everywhere else...). The only time you would really need it is to fight a foreign invader or our own Army.

If someone makes it to American soil the Goverment would GIVE you the ammo.

So against the small chance of someday having to fight our own Army you saddle yourself with the daily maintanance and protection requirements of substance that is far more volitile than plain small arms ammo...

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:03:04 AM EDT

[#25]

You mean we aren't supposed to have satellite based nukes?

Uh-oh.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:06:37 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Not quite. You'd still have to do a nics check to get them.

Running a NICS check on someone buying a TOW misile or an M1 tank? Where did that get mentioned?

Besides how many times to cops "run the numbers" when you have a gun? Do you think a purchase of 25 abrams tanks will go un-noticed?

Of course it would get noticed. But there would be nothing to prevent the sale from going through if the stuff was deregulated.

How about trying and get them for the drug trafficing instead of BS charges!

Of course those investigations still go on, as the legalization crowd here likes to complain about. Why, those types of investigations even result in some of those evil no knocks so many of you complain about!

Besides even if they got them, using them against people is the crime, not the tool.

I don't see a problem with this. If you can't export the weapons, what is the problem? Use them in the US, the National Guard would be on you in no time.

I must have missed where the NG is routinely used for domestic law enforcement functions outside of some drug task force stuff.

Yes SOME groups could buy some high end weapons, but even then, not a lot and it would be rare enough to track down if one group start doing something bad with them.

A little late to be doing anything about it if some cartel decides to wipe out NYC or some other metro area, don't ya think?

I'm willing to take the risk to live free, I guess you are not.

There are limits to individual freedom in the interests of a safe, orderly society. You go and explain to the relatives of however millions of residents of whatever city gets taken out by the cartel/ terrorists that, "hey, at least you are free. Sorry about your reelatives, though".

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:10:34 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Drug cartels buy houses, manufacturing equipment, supplies, chemicals, boats, planes, cars, all legally and use them in illegal manners too. Should we restrict the sale of everything that one can use for illegal purposes?

Anyone can buy fertilizer and diesel fuel still, and anyone can buy gasoline, oxygen, acetylene, various other compressed gasses, gun powder, black powder, fuse, knives, machetes, and so on as well, all of which can be misused.

And all of those things can be taken away from the bad guys courtesy of RICO, when the case is made against them.

Many of the things we are talking about in this thread are strictly offensive in nature, unlike the substances and products you mention. Not to mention that the lethality of nerve gas, nukes and soem ofr the other stuff being talked about is many times more whatever you just listed.

I do not think governments should have nukes, biologicals, nerve gasses, etc, too much history of using it on the populace.

An item that is offensive in nature is still only an item. It, like any other item, is only a tool of the user, and only does the intentions of the user. Just because I can use a knife to make PBJ's does not limit it's effectiveness as an offensive item.

In fact, I think that that is my cut off point, a weapon has to be considered fun to be covered by the second amendment. Machine guns = Fun, Grenades = Fun, nerve gas, = no fun. See it works.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:13:25 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart,

Doubtful. Homey will find other places to get guns... where they dont have the hassle of the 4473, much less the new price and the $200 tax. I think your logic is flawed.

and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun,

Or the exact same keltec in semi automatic mode, with the exact same mag count.

but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Wrong. Not at all. I pray my enemies will have FA fire. Great for supression, sucks for lethality. (we are talking small arms here). Fast, aimed, semi-automatic fire is much more lethal to the masses, IMHO. Even in trained hands (we were talking homey's and gangbangers right?

) the FA weapon has two problems.... muzzle control on multiple targets, and you run out of ammo DAMN fast. If you have 50 targets in a mall, and 2 - 30 round mags.... anyone with any decent skill can take all 50 targets on semi. On FA, HA! I think your logic is flawed.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols,

Criminals dont buy regulated guns.

you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets.

Funny, I never say any guns on the street. I keep hearing about them.... but I never see them. The liberals have broken into your logic system, once again.

You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

So what? Now they would have less reliable weapons and hit a WHOLE lot less people.

Sounds good to me.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:18:05 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

I dont mean this as a personal attack.... so please dont take it as one.

You are exactly the kind of gun owner I fear most. One who has bought into the liberal control idealisms.... You are "pro-gun" by statement.... but slowly... ever so slowly, you fall into the liberal anti-gun line of thinking. Control. Keep guns off the street. No real facts. You have exactly the kind of "pro-gun" mentality, that will allow all of our rights to keep and bear arms to slowly erode away. You have a false belief that machine guns are evil.... and far more deadly than identical semi-autos.

You have ideas, and support anti-gun laws, and yet you have no facts, and wipe your ass with the Constitution. To be honest, it really makes me sad. And sick.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:20:09 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
As a general rule, I'd say anything that takes up to a 5-man crew to operate. Tanks, yes, artillery, yes, fighter/bomber aircraft, no. Artillery was privately owned until well after the Civil War - maybe till the NFA. My main concern with aircraft is safety. Bombs just aren't accurate enough IMO. I think antiaircraft and antitank missiles should be available to citizens after a NICS check, but I'd be inclined to tolerate registration of those.

I believe that we are entitled under the Constitution, at a minimum, to unrestricted access to anything issued to or operated by individual infantrymen/Marines. Remember, the whole point is for the government, rather than the citizens, to live in fear.

ETA: As for the dirtbag issue it's simply fact that something approaching 90% of the people they shoot are fellow dirtbags. Such an episode is known as a "twofer," "N.K. (needed killing)" or "Shooting into Occupied Clothing."

Wow. I normally dont find myself agreeing with you on law enforcement issues, but I am damned glad to see someone with those ideals I differ on.... to support the theory of a government that fears and respects the people. Bless you.

Posted: 1/16/2006 12:41:58 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

I dont mean this as a personal attack.... so please dont take it as one.

You are exactly the kind of gun owner I fear most. One who has bought into the liberal control idealisms.... You are "pro-gun" by statement.... but slowly... ever so slowly, you fall into the liberal anti-gun line of thinking. Control. Keep guns off the street. No real facts. You have exactly the kind of "pro-gun" mentality, that will allow all of our rights to keep and bear arms to slowly erode away. You have a false belief that machine guns are evil.... and far more deadly than identical semi-autos.

You have ideas, and support anti-gun laws, and yet you have no facts, and wipe your ass with the Constitution. To be honest, it really makes me sad. And sick.

We'll..... I guess I should just mindlessly repeat the mantra that all arms regulation are bad, and then I won't be a liberal in your eyes.

BTW, I'm about as far-right as anyone you'll ever meet. I own tons of black guns. Notice the center piece on my kitchen table.

Posted: 1/16/2006 1:05:45 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Why if you have the cash to buy a mortar and rounds, your likely a productive member of society and no inclined to crime.

Drug cartels have plenty of $$ to buy whatever arms they wanted if this stuff was all legalized,and THEY are hardly productive members of society.

They have the money already.

Posted: 1/16/2006 1:20:15 PM EDT

[#33]

I'd like an F-4.

Posted: 1/16/2006 1:31:06 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

I dont mean this as a personal attack.... so please dont take it as one.

You are exactly the kind of gun owner I fear most. One who has bought into the liberal control idealisms.... You are "pro-gun" by statement.... but slowly... ever so slowly, you fall into the liberal anti-gun line of thinking. Control. Keep guns off the street. No real facts. You have exactly the kind of "pro-gun" mentality, that will allow all of our rights to keep and bear arms to slowly erode away. You have a false belief that machine guns are evil.... and far more deadly than identical semi-autos.

You have ideas, and support anti-gun laws, and yet you have no facts, and wipe your ass with the Constitution. To be honest, it really makes me sad. And sick.

We'll..... I guess I should just mindlessly repeat the mantra that all arms regulation are bad, and then I won't be a liberal in your eyes.

BTW, I'm about as far-right as anyone you'll ever meet. I own tons of black guns. Notice the center piece on my kitchen table.

members.roadfly.com/agent7/guns/lunch_rpd.jpg

Fair enough. But just because you "consider" yourself "far right" and own "tons" of black guns means nothing to me about your political views, or your strict belief in the Constitution. Many people just think EBR's are cool, and while they are happy THEY can own them... they are too mistrustful of their fellow man to think the 2nd amendment applies to all. It degrades into elitism.

That leaves me with a few questions:

Then please explain to me, how on earth, you can support a $200 special tax to keep people from gaining access to machine guns? Are you still in belief that they are devastatingly dangerous weapons? Can you provide any facts to back that up, or would you support an illegal gun law strictly based on an assumption?

What part of the 2nd amendment do you have trouble understanding?

I agree with the topic of this post... I often wonder it myself.... where do we draw the line? Small arms and cannons were all that existed 200 years ago. Things have changed. But you were clear on your position with automatic small arms. And that is what scares me.

Posted: 1/16/2006 1:33:28 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
We'll..... I guess I should just mindlessly repeat the mantra that all arms regulation are bad, and then I won't be a liberal in your eyes.

By the way.... that was a really weak response. We are talking a very specific law, on a very specific type of weapon. Throwing that back at me doesn't do much for your argument. I gave very specific reasons why I responded as I did.... you could at least do the same.

Posted: 1/16/2006 2:39:49 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

I dont mean this as a personal attack.... so please dont take it as one.

You are exactly the kind of gun owner I fear most. One who has bought into the liberal control idealisms.... You are "pro-gun" by statement.... but slowly... ever so slowly, you fall into the liberal anti-gun line of thinking. Control. Keep guns off the street. No real facts. You have exactly the kind of "pro-gun" mentality, that will allow all of our rights to keep and bear arms to slowly erode away. You have a false belief that machine guns are evil.... and far more deadly than identical semi-autos.

You have ideas, and support anti-gun laws, and yet you have no facts, and wipe your ass with the Constitution. To be honest, it really makes me sad. And sick.

We'll..... I guess I should just mindlessly repeat the mantra that all arms regulation are bad, and then I won't be a liberal in your eyes.

BTW, I'm about as far-right as anyone you'll ever meet. I own tons of black guns. Notice the center piece on my kitchen table.

members.roadfly.com/agent7/guns/lunch_rpd.jpg

Fair enough. But just because you "consider" yourself "far right" and own "tons" of black guns means nothing to me about your political views, or your strict belief in the Constitution. Many people just think EBR's are cool, and while they are happy THEY can own them... they are too mistrustful of their fellow man to think the 2nd amendment applies to all. It degrades into elitism.

That leaves me with a few questions:

Then please explain to me, how on earth, you can support a $200 special tax to keep people from gaining access to machine guns? Are you still in belief that they are devastatingly dangerous weapons? Can you provide any facts to back that up, or would you support an illegal gun law strictly based on an assumption?

What part of the 2nd amendment do you have trouble understanding?

I agree with the topic of this post... I often wonder it myself.... where do we draw the line? Small arms and cannons were all that existed 200 years ago. Things have changed. But you were clear on your position with automatic small arms. And that is what scares me.

I was quite clear in these statements located elesewhere in this tread. I don't believe I need to clarify them any further.

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands.

What the $200 tax [plus the NFA background check, sigs, fingerprints etc] prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

Posted: 1/16/2006 2:47:30 PM EDT

[#37]

So I guess the chances of me getting an MLRS for my birthday are virtually nil, arent they?

Posted: 1/16/2006 3:03:04 PM EDT

[#38]

I think they need to regulate guns so much that the average citizen cannot buy a new one.

The reasoning:
- My stash of guns would instantly rise in value 500%
- I wouldn't spend so much money on them.

Posted: 1/16/2006 3:29:37 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

I dont mean this as a personal attack.... so please dont take it as one.

You are exactly the kind of gun owner I fear most. One who has bought into the liberal control idealisms.... You are "pro-gun" by statement.... but slowly... ever so slowly, you fall into the liberal anti-gun line of thinking. Control. Keep guns off the street. No real facts. You have exactly the kind of "pro-gun" mentality, that will allow all of our rights to keep and bear arms to slowly erode away. You have a false belief that machine guns are evil.... and far more deadly than identical semi-autos.

You have ideas, and support anti-gun laws, and yet you have no facts, and wipe your ass with the Constitution. To be honest, it really makes me sad. And sick.

We'll..... I guess I should just mindlessly repeat the mantra that all arms regulation are bad, and then I won't be a liberal in your eyes.

BTW, I'm about as far-right as anyone you'll ever meet. I own tons of black guns. Notice the center piece on my kitchen table.

members.roadfly.com/agent7/guns/lunch_rpd.jpg

Fair enough. But just because you "consider" yourself "far right" and own "tons" of black guns means nothing to me about your political views, or your strict belief in the Constitution. Many people just think EBR's are cool, and while they are happy THEY can own them... they are too mistrustful of their fellow man to think the 2nd amendment applies to all. It degrades into elitism.

That leaves me with a few questions:

Then please explain to me, how on earth, you can support a $200 special tax to keep people from gaining access to machine guns? Are you still in belief that they are devastatingly dangerous weapons? Can you provide any facts to back that up, or would you support an illegal gun law strictly based on an assumption?

What part of the 2nd amendment do you have trouble understanding?

I agree with the topic of this post... I often wonder it myself.... where do we draw the line? Small arms and cannons were all that existed 200 years ago. Things have changed. But you were clear on your position with automatic small arms. And that is what scares me.

I was quite clear in these statements located elesewhere in this tread. I don't believe I need to clarify them any further.

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands.

What the $200 tax [plus the NFA background check, sigs, fingerprints etc] prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

Ok, good, you are still clinging to this drivel 14 pages later.

First, you are assuming that "machine guns" are more "lethal" (of course, dead IS dead--you must mean more readily employable and effective than semi-automatics at killing one or more people) than semi-autos. That's just not the case in untrained hands. It takes quite a bit of skill and training to use full-auto effectively, espcecially for belt-fed/crew served machine guns.

Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that readily available $300 kel-tec machine guns will be more often used, for example, in liquor store holdups, with resultant additional murders, than there are now. Even more so considering that most armed crime occurs with small calibre handguns.

Even if more crimes were comitted with machine guns, it seems unlikely that more deaths would result, as most guns crimes don't result in shots being fired. And even when shots are fired, again, using full-auto takes a little more skill than Mr. Street-Thug typically has at his disposal.

What's more, your (stupid) argument ignores that it's pretty easy RIGHT NOW for any criminal to either acquire or make a machine gun (belt-fed excluded). Taxes, background checks and the like won't, and don't now, prevent one single gun crime. Period.

You are basically making the exact same arguments as the Brady bunch right now, and you are just as wrong as they.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:06:53 PM EDT

[#40]

bumpski for the hell of it.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:15:42 PM EDT

[#41]

An automobile.

Kills more people in America than anything else.

Posted: 1/18/2006 11:51:30 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Why if you have the cash to buy a mortar and rounds, your likely a productive member of society and no inclined to crime.

Drug cartels have plenty of $$ to buy whatever arms they wanted if this stuff was all legalized,and THEY are hardly productive members of society.

They have the money already.

I am aware that they have the money. Did I say that they didn't have money? My point was that having money does not automatically mean you are a good guy, which some folks have suggested.

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:09:06 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WMD, since there is no purpose for a civilian to have these. Seriously, we're scared about other countries having these, imagine if individuals could own them

I pretty much think that we should be able to have everything, but should be regulate to a certain extent to keep them out of the hands of criminals(violent crimes). For example:

For long guns (sniper rifles, assault rifles, sporting rifles)(16" or longer):
a background check done to make sure you are not a felon, of age (18), etc. (pretty much what they check for now, but I agree that restraining orders can be waved depending on the case).
put a fired casing/bullet (if it has one) on record for serial number

For handguns, SBR(less than 16"), sawed off shotguns(less than 18"):
background check same as above, but age must be 21
put a fired casing/bullet (if it has one) on record for serial number

For FA firearms:
background check, age must be 21
put a fired casing/bullet (if it has one) on record for serial number

For DDs/Explosive devices/Explosives:
I'm not really sure what to do for this one since this can cover a bunch of different things. Basically I would make DDs cover mines, grenades, mortars, any sort of bombs or devices containing explosives.
to have these you would need:
a background check, age must be 21
take a test competence test for handling/using explosives
registration of each device, with a small fee

I think something like this would be a good compromise; I believe we should be able to have what we want, but I also think there should be a paper trail to who bought the gun. Some people don't like the idea of this, but I think it is important that there is some way to trace a bullet or casing back to a certain gun and then figure out who bought that gun. I think this would stop firearms from getting into the hands of people that shouldn't have them, since if a firearm is used in a crime it can be traced back to the gun that did it.

I probably have overlooked something that I did not take into consideration. This is the general idea though. Oh yeah, and I would like to make it illegal to make laws any other laws that restrict firearms beyond this one. So if changes where to be made, it would have to be made directly to this.

Do you think this is unreasonable?

zaphar, I don't mean to sound insulting,
but how long have you been shooting guns?

Since I was little, my dad intoduced me to them, and I have loved them since

You do know that so called "Ballistic Fingerprinting" doesnt work right?

RIGHT?

Oh, if it doesn't work then scrap that idea, from what I heard it worked, but if it has been proven to not to work, my bad.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 7 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us