What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 2 of 7)

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:44:42 AM EDT

[#1]

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."

Agreed on all points. Perfectly reasonable.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:46:38 AM EDT

[#2]

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?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

um, I hate to break it to you, but they ALREADY ARE just as accessable on the black market

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:48:50 AM EDT

[#3]

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?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

machinegun involved crime happens pretty often, except you dont hear about it due to the MGs being illegal imports, illegal conversions, illegal homebuilds, or stolen. there have been two crimes commited with registered MGs one a suicide and the other a dirty cop shooting a witness. apparently criminals have an easy enough time getting MGs if they want them.
they dont use them often because they are large, bulky, expensive, and for what many of them want to do a jennings/lorcin/hi point will do just fine and they are very inexpensive.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:51:39 AM EDT

[#4]

I think we should be able to own and employ any weapons system that we can effectively control. Meaning that WMDs (which I cannot control unintended casualties with) are verboten but something like a crew-served machine gun wouldn't be. A mortar would be fine although not for home defense. When it comes to personal protection from criminals we have access to "almost" everything that would be useful. I would like to see more access to full-auto and perhaps flashbangs for that purpose.

Hell, it's your house, why not an M203?

As for keeping the government in check I think we should be able to own whatever we can afford so long as it is not a WMD. If Bill Gates wants to fly an OV-22 Osprey to work in Redmond, so be it.

We do so much worrying about arming the evil element of our society we have totally overlooked the benefit of arming moral individuals.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:53:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?
Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

You don't think a FBI/ATF/LEO back-ground check and signatures, in addition to finger-printing and photo, is going to deter a criminal from purchasing a machinegun through legal channels??

If they have $15,000 and a strawman then no, also they can just as easily steal other people's weapons are modify legal ones.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:56:38 AM EDT

[#6]

What I already have will do just fine. However, affordable third + gen NV and thermal imaging
devices would be on my shopping list...just for fun.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:58:16 AM EDT

[#7]

Atomic Cannon.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:58:17 AM EDT

[#8]

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?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

um, I hate to break it to you, but they ALREADY ARE just as accessable on the black market

Really??? Provide some data to backup your claim that there are just as many machineguns on the black-market as pistols. A criminal can walk into any gun show in this country and find a guy walking around that wants to sell his pistol/rifle. The criminal can buy this gun without any paperwork. This is simply a fact, I'm not trying to claim the laws need to be changed. This is one of the ways mass-quantities of pistols get on the black-market and readily available to criminals. Where can criminals buy machineguns as easily as they can get pistols? No doubt there are some black-market machineguns out there, but I would bet black-market pistols out-number them 10,000 to 1.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:58:40 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own?

The Deadliest Weapon The Government Owns.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:59:27 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
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."

Agreed on all points. Perfectly reasonable.

I agree with the text in red. The people need whatever is necessary to fend off the boots-on-the-ground soldiers.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:03:29 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?
Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

You don't think a FBI/ATF/LEO back-ground check and signatures, in addition to finger-printing and photo, is going to deter a criminal from purchasing a machinegun through legal channels??
If they have $15,000 and a strawman then no, also they can just as easily steal other people's weapons are modify legal ones.

No strawman at all on my part. Here was my whole quote and you choose to only address the last sentence of it (isolating the $200 fee from everything), taking my statement totally out of context:

"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?"

BTW, How many crack dealers are filling out the forms and buying NFA MAC10's for $4000? They can afford it, they make that in a day.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:06:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?
Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

You don't think a FBI/ATF/LEO back-ground check and signatures, in addition to finger-printing and photo, is going to deter a criminal from purchasing a machinegun through legal channels??
If they have $15,000 and a strawman then no, also they can just as easily steal other people's weapons are modify legal ones.

No strawman at all on my part. Here was my whole quote and you choose to only address the last sentence of it, taking my statement totally out of context:

"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?"

BTW, How many crack dealers are filling out the forms and buying NFA MAC10's for $4000? They can afford it, they make that in a day.

So why would adding $200 make it less affordable then? That is the basis for my disagreement. YOur origional point was that we needed the $200 tax to keep criminals from obtaining such weapons, which I disagree with. Now you are talking about the paperwork involved to get a FA weapon so what really is your point?

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:08:28 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?
Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

You don't think a FBI/ATF/LEO back-ground check and signatures, in addition to finger-printing and photo, is going to deter a criminal from purchasing a machinegun through legal channels??
If they have $15,000 and a strawman then no, also they can just as easily steal other people's weapons are modify legal ones.

No strawman at all on my part. Here was my whole quote and you choose to only address the last sentence of it, taking my statement totally out of context:

"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?"

BTW, How many crack dealers are filling out the forms and buying NFA MAC10's for $4000? They can afford it, they make that in a day.
So why would adding $200 make it less affordable then? That is the basis for my disagreement. YOur origional point was that we needed the $200 tax to keep criminals from obtaining such weapons, which I disagree with. Now you are talking about the paperwork involved to get a FA weapon so what really is your point?

I clarified my statement for you. Stop living in the past.

"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?"

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:09:45 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

I clarified my statement for you. Stop living in the past.

"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?"

and I said I would object to the $200 tax, you then starting bring up the paper work.......gotta run anyway. Will return from this discussion after the gunshow.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:09:47 AM EDT

[#15]

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?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

um, I hate to break it to you, but they ALREADY ARE just as accessable on the black market

Really??? Provide some data to backup your claim that there just as many machineguns on the black-market as pistols. A criminal can walk into any gun show in this country and find a guy walking around that wants to sell his pistol/rifle. The criminal can buy this gun without any paperwork. This is simply a fact, I'm not trying to claim the laws need to be changed. This is one of the ways mass-quantities of pistols get on the black-market and readily available to criminals. Where can criminals buy machineguns as easily as they can get pistols? No doubt there are some black-market machineguns out there, but I would bet black-market pistols out-number them 10,000 to 1.

I suppose I should fire a shot across your bow and tell you to stop using the same arguments as the grabbers. You just implied that the criminals get their firearms from the gunshows when data shown on this site countless times has proven that that is false.

The problem with a black market is the inherent lack of statistics. All I know is there are umpteen million AKs and M16s laying around the world. Our ports arent that secure. There is a demand, there is a market, there are alot of MGs in this country. Sure pistols outstrip MGs. Last check there were something like 4 handguns (conservative guess based on numbers rebublished here countless times) for ever citizen in the US. Thats over a million firearms that we know about.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:10:19 AM EDT

[#16]

I'd say a pistol gripped semi-auto 10 gauge with a 18.000001" barrel and collapsable stock and a detachable box magazine (you pick the capacity) should be the limit without venturing into NFA territory.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:15:10 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I clarified my statement for you. Stop living in the past.

"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?"

and I said I would object to the $200 tax, you then starting bring up the paper work.......gotta run anyway. Will return from this discussion after the gunshow.

Here's my original post in this thread. Notice the red text. DO YOU SEE IT????????????

Currently we have all kinds of restrictions on buying unusual weapons (I'm not talking about NFA laws to purchase). No explosives over a certain amount, no hand grenades, no mortars, no grenade launchers, nothing over .50 cal, no anti-tank guns, no exploding rounds, no short barrel rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no cannons, no stocks on pistols, no machineguns, etc.....

If you could rewrite the laws, what would you allow honest citizens to purchase with a simple back-ground check (like when buying a pistol/rifle today)?

Here's my answer: I personally see nothing wrong with short-barrel rifles, sawed off shotguns, rounds over .50 cal as long as they don't contain explosives, and pistols with stocks. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:15:28 AM EDT

[#18]

I don't think any one should be able to own a wepaon that can be fired from our country and hit another (besides mexico and canada).

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:19:25 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
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?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

um, I hate to break it to you, but they ALREADY ARE just as accessable on the black market

Really??? Provide some data to backup your claim that there just as many machineguns on the black-market as pistols. A criminal can walk into any gun show in this country and find a guy walking around that wants to sell his pistol/rifle. The criminal can buy this gun without any paperwork. This is simply a fact, I'm not trying to claim the laws need to be changed. This is one of the ways mass-quantities of pistols get on the black-market and readily available to criminals. Where can criminals buy machineguns as easily as they can get pistols? No doubt there are some black-market machineguns out there, but I would bet black-market pistols out-number them 10,000 to 1.

I suppose I should fire a shot across your bow and tell you to stop using the same arguments as the grabbers. You just implied that the criminals get their firearms from the gunshows when data shown on this site countless times has proven that that is false.

The problem with a black market is the inherent lack of statistics. All I know is there are umpteen million AKs and M16s laying around the world. Our ports arent that secure. There is a demand, there is a market, there are alot of MGs in this country. Sure pistols outstrip MGs. Last check there were something like 4 handguns (conservative guess based on numbers rebublished here countless times) for ever citizen in the US. Thats over a million firearms that we know about.

Here is my post that you are referring to. Read it again. The point again is: Machineguns are not as readily available on the black-market as pistols. I cited the gun-show example to demonstrat how easily it is for pistols/rifles to be introduced into the black-market pool of guns.

Really??? Provide some data to backup your claim that there just as many machineguns on the black-market as pistols. A criminal can walk into any gun show in this country and find a guy walking around that wants to sell his pistol/rifle. The criminal can buy this gun without any paperwork. This is simply a fact, I'm not trying to claim the laws need to be changed. This is one of the ways mass-quantities of pistols get on the black-market and readily available to criminals. Where can criminals buy machineguns as easily as they can get pistols? No doubt there are some black-market machineguns out there, but I would bet black-market pistols out-number them 10,000 to 1.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:19:29 AM EDT

[#20]

Every non-felon US citizen already possesses the most deadly weopon ever known to humankind, in the history of civilizaton.

Unfortunately it has to be used in mass attacks, at controlled locations, and at specific times. And every time it is used, it brings the risk of having its effectiveness reduced, or even eliminated if its mis-used.

With proper use, by intelligent citizens, it garuntees access to all other weopons, and the rights to use them. With misuse, comes a slide into slavery.

Your Ballot.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:20:13 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I clarified my statement for you. Stop living in the past.

"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?"

and I said I would object to the $200 tax, you then starting bring up the paper work.......gotta run anyway. Will return from this discussion after the gunshow.

Here's my original post in this thread. Notice the red text. DO YOU SEE IT????????????

Currently we have all kinds of restrictions on buying unusual weapons (I'm not talking about NFA laws to purchase). No explosives over a certain amount, no hand grenades, no mortars, no grenade launchers, nothing over .50 cal, no anti-tank guns, no exploding rounds, no short barrel rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no cannons, no stocks on pistols, no machineguns, etc.....

If you could rewrite the laws, what would you allow honest citizens to purchase with a simple back-ground check (like when buying a pistol/rifle today)?

Here's my answer: I personally see nothing wrong with short-barrel rifles, sawed off shotguns, rounds over .50 cal as long as they don't contain explosives, and pistols with stocks. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

since when is the NICS check not a "full" background check? which keeps evil bad naughty people from buying guns on a whim at a walmart. why is that not enough for machineguns?

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:26:06 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I clarified my statement for you. Stop living in the past.

"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?"

and I said I would object to the $200 tax, you then starting bring up the paper work.......gotta run anyway. Will return from this discussion after the gunshow.

Here's my original post in this thread. Notice the red text. DO YOU SEE IT????????????

Currently we have all kinds of restrictions on buying unusual weapons (I'm not talking about NFA laws to purchase). No explosives over a certain amount, no hand grenades, no mortars, no grenade launchers, nothing over .50 cal, no anti-tank guns, no exploding rounds, no short barrel rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no cannons, no stocks on pistols, no machineguns, etc.....

If you could rewrite the laws, what would you allow honest citizens to purchase with a simple back-ground check (like when buying a pistol/rifle today)?

Here's my answer: I personally see nothing wrong with short-barrel rifles, sawed off shotguns, rounds over .50 cal as long as they don't contain explosives, and pistols with stocks. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

since when is the NICS check not a "full" background check? which keeps evil bad naughty people from buying guns on a whim at a walmart. why is that not enough for machineguns?

The NFA background check and LEO signatures is pretty foolproof to catch any unqualified person from buying an NFA weapon. It also adds fingerprints and a photo. I'm guessing there are ways to trick the NICS pistol/rifle background check since all that is required is a drivers license. In addition, the NFA background check and sigs etc is required when anyone sells their NFA weapon, which guarantees that some gang-banger doesn't buy it out of the newspaper like they can today with pistols and rifles.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:31:28 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

The NFA background check and LEO signatures is pretty foolproof to catch any unqualified person from buying an NFA weapon. It also adds fingerprints and a photo. I'm guessing there are ways to trick the NICS pistol/rifle background check since all that is required is a drivers license.

I have no problem with a detailed background check. The LEO signature, however, is a requirement that has been abused time and time again. NFA items need to be "shall issue" like CHLs.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:32:30 AM EDT

[#24]

A person should be able to own anything they can use for personal defense - without a background check of any kind, plus firearms that fire solid projectiles. I could live with a background check on FA weapons. Truthfully, I could live with a check on all weapons, IF I KNEW THE RECORDS OF SAID CHECK WOULD BE DESTROYED. An anonymous way for a private seller to do a check on a purchaser would be nice too.

All that said, I don't trust the government to destroy the records. This isn't a perfect world, so no background checks of any kind, period, up to explosives. Explosives should be regulated about like NFA weapons are now, minus the tax stamp. Bio weapons are out, period. Nuclear should be VERY hard to obtain, and need + ability to protect should be taken into the equation. There ARE uses for small-yield nukes in civilian hands - construction, clearing land, etc. - but they are likely to cause an unreasonable public safety hazard in populated areas. Chemical weapons are okay, provided, they are well secured and well guarded, outside populated areas.

Tanks, warplanes, artillery, and the like should be available as well. I don't see that any regulation would mattter really, if some banger is driving a tank into downtown LA, the police should realize something might be up, and besides, they'd have AT weapons of their own, along with the people living there.

I contest that crime will not "go up" because of weapons available. There will not be more casualties per incident, as more people would be armed to stop the act sooner. FA weapons might actually save a life or two. Anyone who's ever fired one know that the frst impulse is to hold down the trigger until you dump the mag. This isn't all that effective, and takes all of a couple seconds at most. How many BGs train with their weapons first? would you rather have a bank robber that comes in and sprays 30 rounds into the ceiling and then has to reload, or one that has a 9mm handgun, fires two in the the air to get everyone's attention, and has 13 left to taek care of dissidents?

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:32:32 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The NFA background check and LEO signatures is pretty foolproof to catch any unqualified person from buying an NFA weapon. It also adds fingerprints and a photo. I'm guessing there are ways to trick the NICS pistol/rifle background check since all that is required is a drivers license.

I have no problem with a detailed background check. The LEO signature, however, is a requirement that has been abused time and time again. NFA items need to be "shall issue" like CHLs.

Totally agree!

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:42:56 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

Exactly. At the time the 2nd was written, the military used the same weapons that everyone else had. Private ownership of artillary (cannon) was not uncommon. The purpose of the 2nd is not home defense, but homeland defense. It states Arms shall not be restricted, not small arms or muzzle loading arms or primitive arms or anything like that. Any law abiding citizen that can afford it, should be able to buy anything he or she wants. This includes armor, aircraft (fighters and bombers) and the munitions that they carry. I do, realistically see blocking private ownership of nuclear weapons in that it is also blocked on an international basis. But, If I want to own an FA 18 and a full load of armament and park it along side my fully functional and fully armed M1Abrams, I should be able to do so. Supporting high taxes on particular weapons or banning any type of weapons is the first step to an outright ban. It is already happening on a nearly daily basis. We have states and municipalities that are in direct violation of the second. Even a requirement for a CCW permit is a violation in that it puts additional taxation/stipulations on keeping and bearing arms.

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:48:40 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

We do so much worrying about arming the evil element of our society we have totally overlooked the benefit of arming moral individuals.

+ a bunch

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:54:21 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

Exactly. At the time the 2nd was written, the military used the same weapons that everyone else had. Private ownership of artillary (cannon) was not uncommon. The purpose of the 2nd is not home defense, but homeland defense. It states Arms shall not be restricted, not small arms or muzzle loading arms or primitive arms or anything like that. Any law abiding citizen that can afford it, should be able to buy anything he or she wants. This includes armor, aircraft (fighters and bombers) and the munitions that they carry. I do, realistically see blocking private ownership of nuclear weapons in that it is also blocked on an international basis. But, If I want to own an FA 18 and a full load of armament and park it along side my fully functional and fully armed M1Abrams, I should be able to do so. Supporting high taxes on particular weapons or banning any type of weapons is the first step to an outright ban. It is already happening on a nearly daily basis. We have states and municipalities that are in direct violation of the second. Even a requirement for a CCW permit is a violation in that it puts additional taxation/stipulations on keeping and bearing arms.

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:55:42 AM EDT

[#29]

somehow I think you're really stretching reality to support your crappy position

edit: see DK_Prof's sig line

Posted: 1/14/2006 8:59:48 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

We do so much worrying about arming the evil element of our society we have totally overlooked the benefit of arming moral individuals.

+ a bunch

I don't think we've "totally overlooked the benifit of arming moral individuals". The point I'm trying to make is you need to be careful about making some weapons so easily accessable to everyone, that it makes them too easily accessable to criminals. For example: Do you think I should be able to go buy a full-auto M60 in a gun store with an NICS background check, decide I don't like it, put an ad in the paper and offer it for sale, and then sell it to a stranger without any paperwork at all?

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:00:58 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Tanks, yes, artillery, yes, fighter/bomber aircraft, no. 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.

This is also a "Brady Bunch" attitude. I don't do it or need it, so you don't either"

This is the crux of the argument being used by the anti gunners against the 50 cal right now.

You have obviously never been around many aircraft operations. Bombing is regularly done for fun even today. Hitting a 50 ft circle is not that hard to do. Can you make all your rifle rounds impact (and stay) in a 50 ft circle? ie no recocets?

Aviation is more hevily regulated today than gunz. There is a Fed regulation that states," The PIC (pilot in command) is responsible for anything dropped from his aircraft." Pretty simple, and all inclusive. Most states acopt the Fed regulations as state law.

There is no clear cut law that states you are responsible for where your rifle bullet ends up, that I know of.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:02:47 AM EDT

[#32]

I am not so sure about the semi or full auto grenade launcher. I think Ted Kennedy and SC and shitbag from Cali should all be banned.

Flame throwers are goodness.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:03:17 AM EDT

[#33]

Well, lets review...." 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".

The founders saw no reason to carefully define "arms", nor do I. If Bill Gates wishes to maintain a nuclear arsenal what is that to me? Do you really think he is going to launch against Apple? Back in the day private ship operators owned cannon as did local militia types. As long as laws regarding destruction of private property and recless endangerment are enforced the weapons involved are of no consequence.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:05:43 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:

. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated.

So you'd feel alright then if said "scum" killed your wife with a shotgun he bought at Wal-Mart instead?

This quote lacks brain power. If he had a wife, she would wear body armor and would have shot said scum first.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:07:37 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

Exactly. At the time the 2nd was written, the military used the same weapons that everyone else had. Private ownership of artillary (cannon) was not uncommon. The purpose of the 2nd is not home defense, but homeland defense. It states Arms shall not be restricted, not small arms or muzzle loading arms or primitive arms or anything like that. Any law abiding citizen that can afford it, should be able to buy anything he or she wants. This includes armor, aircraft (fighters and bombers) and the munitions that they carry. I do, realistically see blocking private ownership of nuclear weapons in that it is also blocked on an international basis. But, If I want to own an FA 18 and a full load of armament and park it along side my fully functional and fully armed M1Abrams, I should be able to do so. Supporting high taxes on particular weapons or banning any type of weapons is the first step to an outright ban. It is already happening on a nearly daily basis. We have states and municipalities that are in direct violation of the second. Even a requirement for a CCW permit is a violation in that it puts additional taxation/stipulations on keeping and bearing arms.

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

You might be surprised to know that a legally owned Lear Jet filled with any number of legal combustible materials cannot at present be prevented from doing exactly what you propose. The TFR around large stadiums is only 3000' and three miles radius. No one could stop a Cessna 172 from reaching the same stadium. Just because the jet in question becomes a specialized one the result is the same. Yet the problem has not arisen. I wonder why? Planerench out.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:08:36 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Well, lets review...." 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".

The founders saw no reason to carefully define "arms", nor do I. If Bill Gates wishes to maintain a nuclear arsenal what is that to me? Do you really think he is going to launch against Apple? Back in the day private ship operators owned cannon as did local militia types. As long as laws regarding destruction of private property and recless endangerment are enforced the weapons involved are of no consequence.

If you allow weapons of mass destruction to be purchased by anyone, all it takes is one pissed off guy to destroy the USA as we know it. You think 9/11 fucked up the economy. What do you think would happen to our economy if someone with their personal nuke destroyed New York City and killed 5 million people? Life as you know it would change for the next 10-20 years. You would see 20%+ unemployement and hard ships like you cannot imagine. All this so everyone can have their own nuke if they want it. Yeah right.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:12:09 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

Exactly. At the time the 2nd was written, the military used the same weapons that everyone else had. Private ownership of artillary (cannon) was not uncommon. The purpose of the 2nd is not home defense, but homeland defense. It states Arms shall not be restricted, not small arms or muzzle loading arms or primitive arms or anything like that. Any law abiding citizen that can afford it, should be able to buy anything he or she wants. This includes armor, aircraft (fighters and bombers) and the munitions that they carry. I do, realistically see blocking private ownership of nuclear weapons in that it is also blocked on an international basis. But, If I want to own an FA 18 and a full load of armament and park it along side my fully functional and fully armed M1Abrams, I should be able to do so. Supporting high taxes on particular weapons or banning any type of weapons is the first step to an outright ban. It is already happening on a nearly daily basis. We have states and municipalities that are in direct violation of the second. Even a requirement for a CCW permit is a violation in that it puts additional taxation/stipulations on keeping and bearing arms.

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

You might be surprised to know that a legally owned Lear Jet filled with any number of legal combustible materials cannot at present be prevented from doing exactly what you propose. The TFR around large stadiums is only 3000' and three miles radius. No one could stop a Cessna 172 from reaching the same stadium. Just because the jet in question becomes a specialized one the result is the same. Yet the problem has not arisen. I wonder why? Planerench out.

Don't know...... but 4 commercial jets loaded with fuel killed 3000 Americans and put our country into a recession that lasted 2 years and cost this economy over a trillion dollars. You ever hear of 9/11? What do think 9/11 would have been if Bin-Laden's team could have legally purchased in the USA F18s loaded with armament?

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:20:43 AM EDT

[#38]

lets see, a few thousand dollars worth of plane tickets

OR?

a few billion dollars worth of F/A-18 jets

you can buy Mig 21 fighters from eastern bloc nations for pretty cheap and weapons are out there for them, yet they dont use them. your crappy arguments are wearing even more thin by the moment.

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:26:03 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
lets see, a few thousand dollars worth of plane tickets

OR?

a few billion dollars worth of F/A-18 jets

you can buy Mig 21 fighters from eastern bloc nations for pretty cheap and weapons are out there for them, yet they dont use them. your crappy arguments are wearing even more thin by the moment.

The F18 is not the focus, it's allowing private citizens to purchase military jets, tanks and helicopters that are fully loaded with armament, LEGALLY. Reread my post again and notice the red text. Keep things in the context of the discussion. Legal sales of the armament is the focus. That's the part that is capable of mass destruction. Illegal sales of armament is watched very closely by the feds and it would be very difficult for a terrorist to get any aircraft loaded with missiles/bombs into the USA.

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

Posted: 1/14/2006 9:31:26 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Anything short of WMD is fine by me.

Does anyone really think that it should be legal to sell WMD though? Mustard, sarin, VX gas? Anthrax, smallpox, Black Death? Weapons grade plutonium? Tactical nukes? ICBMs?

"Dude, let's go to the range and shoot some VX rockets!"

"Not busy this weekend, think I'll drive out to the silo and test-fire my Minuteman III!"

"OMG, TS has HTF, I'm going to airburst some Ebola over the local ATF office!"

You have violated the allowable amount of acronyms in a part of a sentence.

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:04:04 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Tanks, yes, artillery, yes, fighter/bomber aircraft, no. 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.

This is also a "Brady Bunch" attitude. I don't do it or need it, so you don't either"

This is the crux of the argument being used by the anti gunners against the 50 cal right now.

You have obviously never been around many aircraft operations. Bombing is regularly done for fun even today. Hitting a 50 ft circle is not that hard to do. Can you make all your rifle rounds impact (and stay) in a 50 ft circle? ie no recocets?

Aviation is more hevily regulated today than gunz. There is a Fed regulation that states," The PIC (pilot in command) is responsible for anything dropped from his aircraft." Pretty simple, and all inclusive. Most states acopt the Fed regulations as state law.

There is no clear cut law that states you are responsible for where your rifle bullet ends up, that I know of.

Point taken. My concern, however is purely safety. I see the rich guy at the end of the block having a B1 with cruise missiles as being OK conceptually. Practically, however, it seems like having a neighbor with 10K gallons each of hydrogen, gasoline, and ammonia in the yard 100' away. It makes me a little itchy to realize that he'll do his best to test, examine, and maintain the tanks & valves, but he also has to pay his mortgage and light bill, put in 50 hrs a week at the shop, pay for his kids' braces, et c. et c. I'm going to be pretty tense every time he fires up the grill to scorch some steaks for his buds.

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:05:22 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

If we could buy a "fully loaded" .mil jet, the jihadist wouldn't get within 50 miles of the stadium without the AFRCOM posie (aka Steyr Aug with all of his wonderful toys) blowing the crap outta them........

Jihadist: ALLAH AKBAR
Steyr: Fox 1!
Jihadist: Wha.... BOOM!

It's all about checks and balances......

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:15:16 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

+1

+1

The way the founding fathers wanted it.

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:18:07 AM EDT

[#44]

Anything without a NBC warhead.

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:53:14 AM EDT

[#45]

Civilians w/ no military experiance
Assault rifles
Rifles
SBRes
SBS
Pistols
Armored Vehicles, No armaments

Civilians w/ military experiance
Assault rifles
Light machine guns
Heavy Machine guns
Mortars
RPGs, LAWs
Tanks
Helos
APCs
Recoillless rifles

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:54:46 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

If we could buy a "fully loaded" .mil jet, the jihadist wouldn't get within 50 miles of the stadium without the AFRCOM posie (aka Steyr Aug with all of his wonderful toys) blowing the crap outta them........

Jihadist: ALLAH AKBAR
Steyr: Fox 1!
Jihadist: Wha.... BOOM!

It's all about checks and balances......

LOL!!! And there would be a few hundred fans in the stands with their personal Stinger Missiles to take down Hadji in his F18.

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:55:47 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Just curious what would happen when US drug dealers had fleets of F18's and gunships w/ fully loaded armament? What about if some Muslim that is an honest US citizen, wants to buy an F18 w/ fully loaded armament with his Dad's oil money..... Then after he buys it, he decides: "you know....fuck it. I think I want to support the Jihad. I'm gonna take my F18 out for a Sunday flight today and take out that football stadium filled with 50,000 people."

Are you OK with this?

If we could buy a "fully loaded" .mil jet, the jihadist wouldn't get within 50 miles of the stadium without the AFRCOM posie (aka Steyr Aug with all of his wonderful toys) blowing the crap outta them........

Jihadist: ALLAH AKBAR
Steyr: Fox 1!
Jihadist: Wha.... BOOM!

It's all about checks and balances......

LOL!!! And there would be a few hundred fans in the stands with their personal Stinger Missiles to take down Hadji in his F18.

BWAHAHAH!

So funny because it's TRUE!

Posted: 1/14/2006 10:57:36 AM EDT

[#48]

Double tap. Crap, my submit button is double tapping. I hope the ATF doens't bust me for this. Unregistered MGSB....not good!

Posted: 1/14/2006 11:19:45 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Every non-felon US citizen already possesses the most deadly weopon ever known to humankind, in the history of civilizaton.

Unfortunately it has to be used in mass attacks, at controlled locations, and at specific times. And every time it is used, it brings the risk of having its effectiveness reduced, or even eliminated if its mis-used.

With proper use, by intelligent citizens, it garuntees access to all other weopons, and the rights to use them. With misuse, comes a slide into slavery.

Your Ballot.

I agree.

Except for the word in red.(regular scheduled uncorrupted elections make our democracy the most stable in the history of the world)

It is a great thing that we, as Americans take for granted.

I really wonder how many people on this board REALLY do take the time to go vote?

Posted: 1/14/2006 11:21:27 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chuck Norris.

One can't "own" Chuck Norris. Chuck is a natural resource meant for all to share.

but he got his ass killed in the ultimate showdown

That was fake and I believe the writer has since died of roundhouse kick related injuries.

As for the origional question, anything that he/she can afford. There would be no U.S.A. right now if our ~~forefathers~~ forepeople only had knives. (edited for political correctness)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 2 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us