Posted: 7/18/2001 3:09:16 PM EDT
|
Would you accept a total ban on possession of handguns if open carry of longarms of any type (SBRs, SMGs, .50 BMG, etc, etc.) was legal everywhere in the US? As much as I loath giving up any of my rights, I think I would be willing to if I could openly carry a more effective weapon like a Commando or a Krink wherever I went. |
|
I'd be all over that. I think one solution to the whole gun debate is the mandatory ownership of selective-fire rifles for every home - and the right to buy any long gun and smg - and then ban handguns completely as a tradeoff. This doesn't necessarily even fly in the face of the 2nd amendement - since military firearms are primarily long guns. Handguns don't relly serve much of a function in the military. If I ever had needed to pull out my sidearm, my platoon would pretty much have been fVcked, and what I could have accomplished with my sidearm would most likely be meaningless. Of course I just bought a Walther P-38 and a Mauser C96 - so I think C$R handguns should still be allowed for collectors. (Or just for me - either way [;)] ). |
|
Quoted: So many ways I would like to answer this but they all start with a good application of Napalm! Absurd! Of course it's absurd. But I'd be willing to give up my "evil" handguns for nationwide open carry of more effective weapons, just wondering how others felt. |
|
Originally Posted By black&green: NO COMPROMISE-----GODDAMMIT!!!!!....WHAT THE HELL is wrong with YOU?.........[whacko] I don't really see it as a compromise, it would be giving up a marginally effective class of weapons only some of as are "allowed" to carry in the "proper" places to have more effective weapons available for everybody wherever you are. |
|
I'm sorry, but going everywhere with my Mossberg 590 strapped to my back would be more than a little awkward. Where am I supposed to put it in the restaurant? The theater? Handguns have no military purpose? Excuse me? How many Beretta 92's did the Army recently buy? What for? Let's condense the above arguments. [size=5][red]HELL NO![/size=5][/red] |
|
Originally Posted By Major Murphy: ...and of course, after we cut this strange deal with our BENEVOLENT MASTERS, we would have to ask Him to promise not to ban anything else. I'm sure He would agree. It is a [b]HYPOTHETICAL[/b] question, once the deal is made, that is it. |
| The biggest problem is that most rifles cannot be safely carried with in the ready to use position. By that I mean, I pull the trigger, the perp drops or I pull the trigger a the hammer and boom the perp drops. Also, what about Short Barrels. For example, what about 14" Shotguns or M4s. A rifle is too cumbersome to be a practical carry weapon. Most rifles with hammers that can be "De-Cocked" as in tapping the trigger wouldn't cause an accidental firing are single-shot. Single-Barreled Shotguns and Winchester Carbines could be carried in a ready to use fashion. But, exactly how useful is a one-shot gun in a firefight. Show me a select-fire rifle that can be de-cocked without firing and then recocked in an instant and I might consider. Also, they would have to allow me to have Barrels shorter than 16"/18". Possibly eliminate the overall length requirement. This would allow for the creation of more effective (Carry) Bullpups. Then again it is much easier to get the drop on a guy with a rifle since it is not concealed from view. A concealed weapon is more effective since the perp doesn't see it coming. Possibly, a Select-Fire Rifle with an action similar to a pistol. Such as, I pull the trigger, then the bolt carrier pushes a hammer (outwardly visible) back into a cocked position. Then, the user could hold the hammer and pull the trigger so that it could be carried. Possibly, if we were allowed to carry a sidearm that could be used in order to hold 'em off until I get my rifle. As once said "A sidearm is for holding 'em off until you can get to a rifle" Also, there are many places I can't take my rifle. |