When it comes to weapons (rifles, explosives, accessories) that individuals should and should NOT be able to own?

This is a serious question. I've seen alot of different opinions here as well as concerns regarding what our founding fathers meant when they passed the second ammendment, so I'm interested in the opinions of ar15.com members regarding where the line SHOULD be drawn. Above 50 cal? Auto/no auto/auto with registration? Short barreled? Silencers? Grenades? (I will assume, perhaps erroneously, that we can agree WOMDs are out)

Personally, I can agree that machine guns be registered, I don't agree with the 1994 crime bill regarding hi-caps, and assault rifles. I could even see registration IF (BIG IF) it kept guns from out of criminal's hands and didn't lead to confiscation.

What's your viewpoint?


regards,

legrue

That sounds real nice.  Peachy.  What's your logic on WHY?

Machine guns ARE registered, and the only misuse has been by an LEO.

Cars are registered, doesn't prevent drinking & driving, bank robberies, or hit & runs.

Should we register 1st Amendment speakers?  How about registering churchs?

What's the LOGIC behind machine gun registration?  What supports registration in the constitution?  What benefit to society does registration provide?

Well my line is about at weapons of mass destrution...

Thats about it..


I mean if you have a safe range...why the hell should you not be able to own a nice little 155mm howitzer!!


Ok so maybe only Ted turner et al would have the room....but if you have training and you have a clean record...

WHY NOT??

I think people ought to be allowed to own anything they can afford, exlcuding weapons of mass destruction, without taxation, registration, or regulation. This includes felons. If they're too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, then they're too dangerous to have let out of prison. Want to buy an abrams? Fine by me if you can afford it. TOW missile? I see no problems.

In an IDEAL situation that will never exist, we would have a government we could completely trust that would act in the best interest of its citizens. All weapons would be LEGAL and REGISTGERED.

The purpose of the registration being the ability to quickly identify criminal misuse and to aid in the recovery and return of stolen weapons.

If a person has the means to own a bazooka and has no preventative history, he should be able to.

Of course the above scenario will never happen as our government has proven it cannot be trusted.

I'm with AlClenin on this. Whatever you can afford to buy. Short of bio/chem weapons.

Weapons of Mass Destruction....but that leaves it open to interpretation...."define Mass"?

In theory, a person with great shooting ability and a few high caps could destroy lots of people....right?

If the weapon is a belt fed .50 BMG, well that can turn a plane or a car into scrap metal in no time....
I dunno. I say bombs and nukes I guess

If infantry could carry it, civilians can carry it.

Crew fired guns? I haven’t put together an opinion about those yet, i.e. haven’t figured out a good response to the [b]liberal's[/b] question as to why we should we have them.

As far as tactical nukes, why? You can only shoot them once and the ammo is too damn expensive. Where is the fun in that?

edited to clarify the question

That is the WRONG QUESTION!!

The right one is WHY NOT!!!

[B][RED]*  *  *  *  *  *  [devil] DEVIL'S ADVOCATE [devil] *  *  *  *  *  * [/red]


Well, you have to REGISTER to vote! And that's a Constitutional RIGHT isn't it?

You have to REGISTER as a PAC if you are a large group of citizens who are lobbying and funding Congressmen! Isn't the right to petition Gov't for redress of grievances also a Constitutional RIGHT?

You have to REGISTER with the FCC if you want to broadcast radio or TV transmissions from your home! Yet the SCOTUS ruled that radio/TV broadcasts are considered part of the RIGHT to "free speech" didn't it?"

You have to REGISTER with the city to organize a  large protest march in front of your Capitol! But the right to peacefully assemble is a Constitutional RIGHT isn't it?

You have to REGISTER to claim tax-exempt status if you OWN a church! And that's a Constitutional RIGHT too isn't it?

You have to properly REGISTER ownership/title in your real property! Otherwise you have no legal claim to protection against unreasonable searches or seizure of your property.


Remember...

No one ever killed a cop in a late-night ghetto ambush by SHOUTING AT HIM!

How many convenience store clerks were killed by being CLOBBERED WITH BOOKS last year?

No one ever killed a dozen children by READING TO THEM!


Finally...

The phrase "well-regulated" is vague and open to interpretation. The fact that this phrase is even in the Constitution indicates that SOME Gov't regulation of the RKBA was obviously intended by the FFs.
[/b]

LA Hollywood shootout was a misuse of a machinegun.
GG

Sorry Stormbringer, I edited to clarify the question from a liberal’s pov. I haven’t come up with a better response than “Because I want one!” That answer works between us, but to someone who has the misguidance to believe that I (we) are criminals/ mass murderers waiting to happen for just having a .22lr pistol.

Crew mounted guns are perfect for civilian use since we are the first line of defense on the home front. If you think 911 response time is slow, how long do you think it would take to get the military to get on station should the need arise?

Ditto.....

By WOMD I'm thinking NBC weapons. I'd have no problems with someone being able to buy one of the giant bunker buster bombs the used over in afcrapistan. I also have no problem with the manufacturer of such weapons refusing sales of such weapons to anyone they'd like.

Nuclear, Bio, any chemical that has more than 5% lethal concentration.

Right up until the depression we had public ownership of arty, machine guns, and aircraft bombs with no problems.

The gangsters were using sub guns until law enforcment got off their butts and figured out how the phones worked to tolk to each other. We can't have a machine gun because deputy cleadus is too stupid to send a telegram to the next town up the road?

Voter registration is to prevent fraud, not to control who gets to vote and who doesn't. If it is used to prevent voting or to track individuals voting habits, then it's being abused. If you can think of a good way to stop double voting without registration, then we'd have a good reason to end voter registration.



Don't know what to make of this one. What sort of negatives would come about by eliminating this registration requirement?





Did they rule that the broadcasts themselves (i.e. the electromagnetic waves) are free speech, or did they rule that the content of the broadcasts is protected?



This sounds like one form of registration that should be eliminated.



This is income tax right? The income tax seems to be bogus to me.



This seems like more un-constitutional BS.



Really? [url]http://flashbunny.freewebspace.com/freespeech.html[/url]



Why didn't they specify what sort of regulation? What sort of regulation did they put in place when that was written? If none, why not? Is it possible that the militia clause simply shows why the amendment is there? The reason that it is there doesn't change what it says. "... shall not be infringed".

[/b]

Only to prove that you live in the town/city where you are voting.



This right is for individuals, not for groups or a collective.



Airwave broadcast transmissions utilize public resources over a broad area that extends beyond your private property. Last I knew twelve year olds don’t have to register their Mr. Microphones



This covers [b]organized[/b] protests. If individuals coincidently show up on the steps of the State House at the same time to protest with out organizing then it is not an organized march.



Everyone (IIRC) was tax-exempt when the Constitution was written.



If you can’t prove that the property belongs to you, then why are you there? Are you trespassing?




True, but the ambush had to be planned and that uses language of some sort.



How many convenience store clerks stopped an attempted robbery with a book, ever?



What about the ATF, FBI, SS, Gulag, etc, they read the orders that killed Weavers’ son, burned a bunch of children outside Waco, TX, and systematically killed countless millions of children in the past century



[u]Infringe[/u]: v, to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
[u]Regulate[/u]: vt, to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition 1998

[I] A well regulated [adjusted and accurate] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [b]PEOPLE[/b] [not state] to keep and bear arms shall [must] not be infringed [violate].

It's ALSO used to prevent (ineffectively though) non-citizens, felons and underage teens from voting. So it DOES control who gets to vote and who doesn't.

Your content is "free speech" but you still have to register to broadcast. So if FCC thinks you're abusing your broadcast frequency you lose your broadcast license EVEN if it's based on solely your content (incitment, fraud, obscenities).




Yet these "registrations" DO exist. And some say because of these, gun registration is thereby consistent with these other forms of registration of our basic "rights".

Many believe your have a "right" to own guns, but must simply register them as belonging to you (like your real property).

Yes, I've seen that one. It is an EXCELLENT retort to the "free speech" analogy.

BUT... those words were just words.

The actual lethal actions were carried out by men with guns [i](against unarmed civilians of course)[/i]

Maybe they left it up to each generation to decide how much regulation it would tolerate.

Sure, the militia clause implies the intent.

BUT... the "well-regulated" modifier of the militia clause also implies some form of regulation does it not?

Ideally, no waiting periods, no registration, no restrictions on [b]anything[/b]. The only things I'd ban are NBC weapons, because there's just no way to use these without hurting someone. Realistically? Whatever we can keep them from taking away.

[b]The_Macallan[/b],

I wonder what the FFs would have thought of having to register to do all those things? Could they imagine wanting to protest a town policy, and having to get permission for your protest from the same officials who enacted the policy? What would keep the mayor or council from saying "permit denied" just because they didn't want any opposition?

Registering to vote: Are you really registering, or are you simply providing proof of residency and helping to prevent vote fraud?

Registering as a PAC is more to keep track of money received by the Congressman than to register people who want redress for grievances. The limits are on how much money you can give (conflict of interest laws, I suppose), not how many times you can talk with him.

Are radio/TV broadcasts considered free speech? It seems to me that you can say or show a lot of things in print that you can't say or show via the airwaves. Do you have to register with anyone to publish a porno mag, other than to get reduced rates from USPS?

Is the freedom of religion a right guaranteed by the Constitution, or is it freedom for your church to not be taxed on the money it takes in? Considering how often the pulpit is used for political and social activism (a la PAC), maybe churches [b]should[/b] be taxed or regulated the same as PACs are.

I think registration of property is so they always know who to threaten with violence if you don't pay your rent...er, taxes. Property is unreasonably seized all the time, just look at asset forfeiture laws.

I do believe some federal regulation of the RKBA was intended, but that it was meant to be along the lines of "each private soldier in the militia shall equip himself with..." and not blanket restrictions of entire classes or types of firearms and entire groups of people.

The only limit should be set by one's wallet and criminal history.  If someone has a history of violent crime(and I mean common sense has to be used here, not disqualifying someone because of a drunken fight they had in college), I don't want Johnny Bankrobber, who just got out of prison, to be able to walk into a store and walk out with a SAW and a Mini Uzi.  But otherwisse, if you can afford it, and you can safely operate it, you oughta be allowed to have it(short of any NBC's or EMP weapons).



If you lived close to Rosie, you would set off a radiological weapon in her driveway?  [sarcasm]Good idea.  I'm sure that you'd be fine, if the prevaling winds were in your favor.[/sarcasm]

I'm going to respond without reading everybody else's response.  

Let's put this right up front:

NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE - Your rights are limited where they come in conflict with the rights of others.  Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights [i]are[/i] subject to [i]narrow, limited, [u]necessary[/u][/i] limitations.  It is our job to elect people who won't pass excessively restrictive laws, and the job of the judicial branch to test any restrictions of our fundamental rights for excess.  Through due process of law we strip life, liberty, the right to vote, and the right to arms from people who violate the law.  I have no problem with that, so long as there is a practical method for having your rights restored through due process also.

Having said that:

NFA restrictions - As someone said, there have been only two criminal violations with NFA registered automatic weapons have ever occurred.

That means (drum roll please) the restriction [b][i]worked[/i][/b].  It kept full-auto weapons out of the hands of idiots.  Of course the criminals still got them.  They don't care about following the law.  It also reduced the proliferation of full-auto weapons, since it was enacted right about the time that full-auto weapons became available in quantity to the general public.  

I disagree with the local prohibitions, the $200 transfer "tax,"  and the Chief LEO signoff, but I don't mind the background check and registration requirement for full-auto.  Anything less than full-auto though?  No registration, no licensing, nothing but a background check to ensure that the buyer is not a restricted person.

I think civilians should have access to all standard military-issue small-arms.  If you want a full-auto, undergo the background check.  If you want a mortar - undergo the background check, and get your ammo from the National Guard armory with use restricted to military practice ranges.  You want a Stinger?  Sorry.  Where are you going to target practice?  Same for mines and anti-armor missiles.  We should be able to go to the National Guard armory and be checked out on heavier weaponry, but not take ordnance home.  Our weapons should be limited to essentially the same thing the Swiss get - full auto and selective fire long arms, and sidearms.  Anything bigger stays in the Armory.

There are too many idiots in this country.  Look at what they do at our public rifle ranges!  You want these morons to have [i]ARTILLERY!?!?[/i]  Sorry.  I cannot buy into that.  And I don't think the Founders would disagree.

1.  Arm everyone with any Firearm they can afford

2.  If you commit a crime with a firearm you go to jail

Crime would drop drastically and the USA would have the most powerful Homeland Security Army in the whole fucking world!!

Sgtar15

I'm sure many here (including you [b]beekeeper[/b]) are familiar with Federalist 29 where Hamilton points out that a militia ought to be regularly assembled, inspected (registered?), trained, equipped and disciplined by the State - but that such actions would be logistically impossible:

[i]
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real
grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; [b]and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[/b][/i]

Couldn't one argue that in order to fulfill Hamilton's intent that I highlighted, the Gov't must form some type of registry of armed citizens?

Don't get me wrong, if the Gov't were filled with Colonial Statesmen rather than slick politicians, I'd STILL have a problem with gun registration.

Yep.

The same with registering ANYTHING[i](guns)[/i]!

The fact that we are forced to register to vote does not mean it is constitutional.

The fact that PACs are forced to register does not mean it is constitutional. And so on, and so on.  What has become common practice is not necessarily right, correct or proper.

The phrase well-regulated, when referring to a militia simply meant "well-trained", able to follow basic commands to load, ain and fire when ordered to do so.  It IS NOT vague, but entirely specific, a term of art well-known and understood.  Look it up in the Federalist Papers.  

Note also that NO OTHER specifically enumerated right says "shall not be infringed".

ARMS: weapons of defense or offense, collectively; also formerly armor.
SMALL ARMS: Firearms of small caliber, usually not greater than 60 caliber or 1 inch, includes pistols, rifles, machine guns, etc.

I personally would draw the line at 50 caliber machine guns.

See my other posts here:

[i]Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, [b]it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[/b][/i]

Couldn't one argue that in order to fulfill Hamilton's intent that I highlighted, the Gov't must form some type of registry of armed citizens?

Biological & chemical weapons should be outlawed because they aren't much fun. All the other stuff is cool.

Silencers I really wish would be legalized so you could choose not to bother your neighbors.

Sincere thanks to those who took time to answer my question. It was interesting to read your responses. I'm thinking now that weapons I wouldn't want people like, bank robbers to have, I could probably live without (crew machine guns, laws, etc.)

To those of you that tried to hijack my thread and turn it into another soap box, I wave my private parts at you.

-legrue

I have an eswimg 16 oz claw hammer,and a nine mm pistol.   If I hit you ounce with my eswing,shoot you twice with my nine mm.   I'll bet if you have a choice you'll tell me to shoot me cause there ain't no way you want to get smacked by that  hammer again.

 So I guess for the childrens sake we should ban large hammers(exspecially 16 lb sledge )

Have a good day and enjoy Mem day weekend.

  Bob [8D]

Individuals should be allowed to own any weapon that the government allows itself to own.

I would deny both of them the ownership of biological and chemical weapons, since these have a "randomness" which makes their use impossible to control fully.

I would restrict individuals from owning nuclear weapons, while still allowing the government to keep them, only because other governments have them and so they are required for deterrence.  However, ideally, these should be eliminated completely, eventually (as soon as possible).

whatever the hell u can afford

think about it how many people can afford a nuke anyway!

I'm not sure what your point is here, but what about crimes with full-auto weapons that were NOT NFA registered?  All the statistics say is that people who register their guns also obey other laws.  

Ditto.  Very well put.

[(:|)]

Five Feet to the left!

I draw the line on: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons.

Other than that: I think there should be no restrictions.

Law abiding citizens of the USA should be able to own and use any "arms" in existance.  This includes machine guns, silencers, howitzers, etc.  No "arms" should be outlawed, registered, or tracked by any means.  Any convicted felon that lost their Second Amendment rights who touches or attempts to buy or posseses "arms" should be immediately beaten and then imprisoned.  The laws should be changed but until then I will obey each and every one.

Are NBC weapons considered arms?  If so then the risks may outweigh the benefits of owning such arms.  Law abiding citizens probably would opt out of owning these arms anyway even if they could afford them.  On the other hand a self-contained, maintenance free, environmentaly friendly, nuclear powered, uninterruptable, power generator would be nice. [8D]

Shok

When was the convicted felon = no gun rights law put into place? What are the details of it?

The point is that one side of the argument says that registration "works," the other says it doesn't.  Well, it [i]does[/i] "work" if and only if you start registering at the beginning of either the society or the introduction of the technology, whichever comes first.  For the U.S., we started registering full-auto weapons about the time they became really generally available to the public.  (Yes, I know the Thompson was available in the '20's, but it was [i]quite[/i] expensive and out of the reach of most.)  The restrictions placed upon them kept them out of the hands of most people who would buy one "just because they could."  Even now, full-auto weapons are pretty rare in crime.  There's not a large quantity of them out there to be easily stolen.

Having said that, there is [i]no way[/i] to "register" all the other weapons out there - isn't gonna happen.  THAT [i]won't[/i] "work,"  it's too late, and we're not in a cooperating mood.

I think most people would agree that [i]criminals[/i] will get whatever they want - it's the law of supply and demand.  What most "gun controllers" want is to keep them out of the hands of morons.  Well, I support the Second Amendment as much as anyone, and [b][i]I'd[/i][/b] like to keep them out of the hands of morons, too.  The ones who shoot the s*^t out of anything over 6" tall at the rifle range, the ones who leave shattered glass and piles of crap in desert areas, the ones who shoot up street signs, the ones who fire into the air on the 4th of July and other assorted holidays, the ones who....  You get the idea.  These are the people who make us all look bad.

Face it, a responsible people wouldn't require regulation.  The problem is controlling the idiots without getting our rights stripped from us in the name of "public safety."

It only takes one [;)]

A couple people have used the "no right is absolute" argument here, and they're right - I don't have the right to slander someone or cause a panic by shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater and claim my rights to do so are protected by the 1st amendment. But, I don't see "allowing" the [i]ownership[/i] of any weapon short of NBC as conferring an absolute right - it's still illegal to them to harm someone, right? I believe that in order for libel or slander to have occurred, harm or the intent to harm must be shown. Who is harmed merely by the possession or lawful use of a weapon?

Private citizens should maintain the right to bear small arms - everything from a single shot break open shotgun to real M16A2.  Private citizens should maintain the right to possess SBR's, full autos etc. without registration and or other hassel. Anything up to .50 BMG is okay by me!

However, I would bar felons, people suffering with mental illnesses, people convicted of incidents of domestic violence and minors from from owning, touching, viewing or smelling firearms.

But then again, I'd like to see the minimum age for drivers raised to 21 and the drinking age lowered to 14.

But then again, I'd like to see the minimum age for drivers raised to 21 and the drinking age lowered to 14.




STEP AWAY FROM THE CRACKPIPE!!!