I've been pretty active in the"Arresting Petty drug dealers" thread this morning because it's an interest of mine, but some of the ideas expressed got me thinking about the limits on personal freedom imposed by the drug laws. I'd really like to hear from the Board on the issue of "What limits should be imposed on the Second Amendment?"
At what level of deadliness (what a concept!) do we start restricting your right to own arms?
Anything short of fully automatic?
Tanks?
Nuclear weapons?
Airsoft?

My personal opinion is that unless you have been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, you should be allowed any weapon to possess and carry, short of a fully automatic weapon,The AWB that just expired was a joke, and BTW silencers shouldn't be regulated either.
Have fun.

Background checks are OK for me.

If you want to ban anything above .50 Caliber, I'll be willing to discuss it.

Other than that, LEAVE ME THE F*CK ALONE!

My personal opinion is that unless you have been convicted of a violent felony, you should be allowed any weapon you can afford to buy for possession and carry and supressors shouldn't be regulated either.

If you can't be trusted with all your Constitutional rights guns, voting and unrestricted travel, you should not be released from prison.

Violent misdemeanor.......  there should be no such thing. If you hurt somebody in ANY way it should start out as a felony, get it reduced if you can prove non intent or whatever. But violent and misdemeanor should never be used in the same sentence.

reading another thread led me toward this thought: anything a cop can carry to keep the peace, a citizen can carry to defend himself.

Quoted: reading another thread led me toward this thought: anything a cop can carry to keep the peace, a citizen can carry to defend himself.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I hope you don't mind if I remember that line in the future.

Quoted: Quoted: reading another thread led me toward this thought: anything a cop can carry to keep the peace, a citizen can carry to defend himself. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hope you don't mind if I remember that line in the future.

go right ahead, i've decide not to impose my trademark of this phrase on any arfcom members

Quoted: reading another thread led me toward this thought: anything a cop can carry to keep the peace, a citizen can carry to defend himself.

And then some.  I don't want to be limited to just what the P.D. has.  What if they all went to less-than-lethal weapons?  The anti's would make a big play on that.

Every single person walking this planet should be able to own any infantry-type weapon.

If someone is too dangerous, lock them up for good or kill them.

Oh, and obviously, no background checks, etc.

Quoted: What if they all went to less-than-lethal weapons?

they would probably die. won't ever happen and if it did, it would be repealed very soon after.

Quoted: My personal opinion is that unless you have been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, you should be allowed any weapon to possess and carry, short of a fully automatic weapon,The AWB that just expired was a joke, and BTW silencers shouldn't be regulated either. Have fun.

Personally I have no problem with automatic weapons as they fall into the class of "any infantry weapon".  As for sound suppressors, to this day I haven't a clue what the problem was with them back in 1934 that they had to be part of the NFA other than they were "gangster tools".  Rabidly anti-gun countries such as Great Britain and Australia have no problems allowing them (at least they didn't into the early 90's - I haven't kept up on their laws).

As for background checks, I have no problem with them either except that there has been the ongoing problem of government record retention and the fact that you need an FFL to do it for you.  FFL's around here charge from $30 on up for each transfer and that is getting to be rediculous.  I would like to see a government office where it could be done for free.  You could still use an FFL if you wanted the extra services an FFL can provide but for a barebones transfer, no-frills, then there should be a government sponsored way to do it.

Violent misdemeanor....... there should be no such thing. If you hurt somebody in ANY way it should start out as a felony, get it reduced if you can prove non intent or whatever. But violent and misdemeanor should never be used in the same sentence.

When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking of Assault (Family Violence) and Violation of a Protective Order. I wasn't thinking of it, but Terroristic Threat might come under the classification as well. The Texas Legislature hasn't seen fit to expand those admittedly violent acts to felony status.
I get a little nervous about the "violent misdemeanor" classification, too. People HAVE been set up and lost their gun rights because of a vengeful woman. Of course, they nearly ALL CLAIM they were set up, so there ya go.

If you can afford it, you can own it ... nukes included.

Quoted: If you can afford it, you can own it ... nukes included.

Uhhhhhhh......... No.

No crew served weapons (if a single average schmoe can carry it ten paces, it's not crew served) and nothing with damage potential measured in the megatons.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own ordinance
why are tanks and nukes being mentioned?

Quoted: Violent misdemeanor....... there should be no such thing. If you hurt somebody in ANY way it should start out as a felony, get it reduced if you can prove non intent or whatever. But violent and misdemeanor should never be used in the same sentence. When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking of Assault (Family Violence) and Violation of a Protective Order. I wasn't thinking of it, but Terroristic Threat might come under the classification as well. The Texas Legislature hasn't seen fit to expand those admittedly violent acts to felony status. I get a little nervous about the "violent misdemeanor" classification, too. People HAVE been set up and lost their gun rights because of a vengeful woman. Of course, they nearly ALL CLAIM they were set up, so there ya go.

Hence the reason for my post.

Good people's lives have been forever ruined by the supposed "war on drugs" as well.

Any weapon the average soldier can carry.   I would specifically include every single currently issued weapon of the Military or Law Enforcement.

The dictionary.com definition of ordnance:
1.Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.
2.The branch of an armed force that procures, maintains, and issues weapons, ammunition, and combat vehicles.
3. Cannon; artillery.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own ordinance why are tanks and nukes being mentioned?

I don't think the second goes into definitions, but to answer your question, I wanted to see if anyone would say the right is absolute.

You should be able to have any firearm. Full auto, is fine. No limits on the numbers you can own. If it is a gun you can buy it.

Now when it comes to bombs and tanks etc. I don't see a problem restricting those in some way I guess.

Hell Hun, there were no federal police until Lincoln! No city cops, until 1908, if I am not mistaken.

Quoted: Quoted: reading another thread led me toward this thought: anything a cop can carry to keep the peace, a citizen can carry to defend himself. Prescisely! There was a time in this country when federal law enforcement officers could NOT EVEN CARRY SIDEARMS! Remember? Things have sure changed....for the worst. They have become MORE 'empowered' while the citizens they are supposed to protect have been slowly and surely disarmed. It's like King George actually won the American Revolution after all. Eric The(TieThatBinds)Hun

The only new gun law needed would be an instant background check on all firearms sells to make sure convicted felons are not buying weapons.  Other than that, maybe a repeal of the 89 import ban.  I think the fully autos should be left to the states to decide as should the concealed carry laws.  Hell i think the state should decide most of them as long as the state doesnt disarm the entire public and they follow the 'new' national instant background check.

The 2nd Amendment does not say that only certain people have this Right and it also does not say anything as to what type of arms are acceptable for individuals. What it does say is that each and every one of us has the god given right to bare arms, and that no branch of government has the authority to restrict that right.

Joe

Quoted: The 2nd Amendment does not say that only certain people have this Right and it also does not say anything as to what type of arms are acceptable for individuals. What it does say is that each and every one of us has the god given right to bare arms, and that no branch of government has the authority to restrict that right. Joe

So youre saying that someone released from prison for a drive by shooting should be allowed to own and carry a gun?

I firmly believe in the rights endowed citizens in the Constituion and I do agree with Sean Hannity when he says that the Constitution is based on moral foundations, that is, to paraphrase Plato, good men need not rules to tell them how to act and bad men will not act even if told. However, fully automatic weapons weren't around when the Constitution was formed, we were just coming out of the Revolution, and the founders were very adamant in their opposition to the abuse of power, therefore, they endowed law abiding citizens a means to defend themselves from a tyranical government. I don't believe that a citizen without formal training and approval should be able to have fully automatic weapons. However, I think that if an individual can pass exams comparable to that of Police officers and soldiers, they should be allowed to own automatic weapons. I think individuals at age 18 should be able to purchase rifles and handguns, contrary to the regulation that only 21 year olds can buy handguns. I don't believe that citizens should be able to legally purchase body armor, I think the bank robbery in Las Angeles is evidence enough of the effectiveness of body armor. Now, I know that I will catch Hell that "bad people" will purchase body armor regardless of the laws against it, however, you make body armor more avaliable and you create a means for people to protect themselves when you start mass-producing those kind of products. For example, a person is commiting a "Crime of Passion", say an assault on a house because they are a spurned lover , that person besieges the house, and then has body armor that he bought legally to protect himself.  Our Constitution must not lose the values and principles that if was originally based on: liberty, freedom, the protection of individual rights, protection of the minority, etc. However, our Constitution must also be made effective in a world that has drastically changed technologically, while still maintaining the virtue and moral fabric that it was and is comprised of.

Background checks...ok, but needs to be real quick.

Limit; only the weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person.

Full auto, suppressors, SBS, SBR, AOW, and non-explosive destructive devices should be legal too buy with only a background chech. Explosive destructive devices should probably be only bought by certified people. I think a totally civilian group with no political connections should set the cerifications. WMD's no way. I think the 2nd was written for us to defend our homeland and us detonating WMD on our homesoil is a self defeating purpose. And an AD with a rifle is not good, but an AD with a nuke is catastrophic. Not too sure about tanks though.

No restrictions.  WTF is wrong with autos?  Why a test for them?  The Hollywood bank robbers used autos, didn't kill anyone.  Columbine kids used semis, killed 13.

Quoted: As for sound suppressors, to this day I haven't a clue what the problem was with them back in 1934 that they had to be part of the NFA other than they were "gangster tools".

Poaching.  People were hnting for rood rather than paying money for it, or a license.  

Quoted: No crew served weapons (if a single average schmoe can carry it ten paces, it's not crew served) and nothing with damage potential measured in the megatons.

An M-60 is crew served and I can hump one a damned sight further than 10 paces.  (at least I used to be able to)

ETA:  Nevermind I misread your post!