Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/6/2001 10:53:27 PM EDT
What weapons should we be legal for us to own? In my opinion the second amendment had nothing to do with hunting, but instead was simply added to allow the people of the U.S. to be on the same level as the government.(militarily) I find that most people feel it is o.k. to own shotguns and hunting rifles. Some agree that handguns should be allowed. But the majority of people(non-ar-15 members) believe that military assault rifles, especially full-auto versions should not be available to the public. I don't have to ask if we should be allowed to own full-auto rifles on this board, but I would like to know your opinions on other military weapons such as; grenades, mortars, heavy weapons, and for people like Bill Gates, Tanks, Fighter Jets, etc.? Is there a limit to what we as civilians should be able to posses?
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 10:58:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 11:01:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/6/2001 10:56:31 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Well, this is a dream wish list, but I'd like the AN-94, H&K G36C, & UMP45, to name 3. The Tavor 21 looks pretty good too :) But I digress. No matter what happens, I don't think any laws currently on the books will be rescended. The best we can hope for is that things don't get worse. Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention the Benelli M4 Super 90 (in its current military guise, no less). [heavy][pyro] [rocket][uzi]
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 11:10:18 PM EDT
ANee Ting yooo wont.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 11:13:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 1:19:43 AM EDT
Just a minute...let me check my copy..."keep and bear ARMS.." Nope, doesn't specify. Question should be "Which arms are legal, but forbidden anyway, by a government that doesn't follow the law of the land?"
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 1:34:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman: Anything that can be carried by an infantryman.
View Quote
I could not have said it better myself!! What he said!!!!![50] [frag] [grenade] [heavy] [pistol] [rail] [rocket] [shotgun] [sniper][stick][uzi] [uzi]
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 3:05:08 AM EDT
Anything not nuclear, chemical or biological. If someone wants an Aircraft carrier and F18, enjoy. I'd personally love to fly an Apache, drive a M1 tank, fire a morter, have a quad 50 on the back of my truck. etc.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 3:37:06 AM EDT
Anything you can afford, before the GCA of '68 (And of course NFA '34) you could own darn near anything with ease. 20mm cannons were as easy to purchase as a Winchester rifle.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 4:26:40 AM EDT
Here in the west we have people who own fighter jets, surplus tanks etc. The problem is the cannon and rockets that they must carry. Anything goes. And should. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 4:31:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2001 4:24:45 AM EDT by hondajohn]
there is a lot of debate about the subject I am reading the recent United States versus emerson case ruling in the northern district of texas that the court recoginized that the 2nd amendment does give individual people the right to keep and bear arms and does not go with the social model ie.. only the militia is allowed to have weapons. It sites a case in 1939 where a court ruled that the weapons in the GCA 1934 were not of military value and that case a person transported a short barreled shotgun across state lines. the 1939 court decision struck me as funny because its opinion was that the 2nd amendment guaranteed people the right to keep weapons to defend against a tyranical government and that the SBS had no military value. If that is the case and according to that case then we should be allowed anything deemed to "have military value" since the military has adopted the M4 I guess 14.5" barrels have a military purpose as well as full auto and for that reason class 3 should be legal for all who choose (and in my opinion are not fellons) with out the need for the tax. I am doing more research into the 1939 case and will keep you updated with my findings. Back to the original question which weapons anything you can afford and be responsible to own. its kind of like the reason we don't give Drivers licenses to 12 year olds they are not responsible. IMHO john
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 4:38:29 AM EDT
Yes the Miller decision postulated that arms with a 'military purpose' are suitable for citizens to own, but that others could be regulated. So why were target pistols, hunting rifles, and derringers not subject to the NFA after that case was decided? It's rediculous to believe that any arms should be banned/regulated whether or not they are military in purpose or designed for other means. I bet the Founding Fathers would have strokes if they knew that metal and plastic boxes with springs can be illegal to own if they're too large.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 4:39:14 AM EDT
M-249 SAWs and Hand Grenades.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 4:51:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 5:55:47 AM EDT
What weapons should we be legal for us to own? -All of them!
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 5:59:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2001 5:53:36 AM EDT by ECS]
The U.S. Constitution doesn't place any limits on what 'arms' are legal so as far as I'm concerned any arm should be OK. P.S. I do like the answer of anything you can carry though... P.P.S. How about that multi-barrel weapon that woman Marine carried around in "Aliens"?
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:18:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2001 6:12:29 AM EDT by KBaker]
Per the 5th Circuit Court:
We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.
View Quote
That's the most recent legal definition of what is protected. However, this means that short-barrelled rifles & shotguns, fully-automatic weapons, "destructive devices" and suppressors are still OK to be strictly regulated per [i]Miller[/i]. I think this should be open to challenge, however, due to the fact that [i]Miller[/i] noted that
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
View Quote
Since the W.W.I "trench broom" 12 gauge pump shotgun had a barrel of less than 18", it would have been a simple matter to prove that the shotgun in question could indeed be "ordinary military equipment". So too, fully automatic weapons. Now that the 5th Circuit has opened the door, now is the time to start attacking the 1934 and 1968 Gun Control acts in the courts. I don't expect much to change, myself, but IMHO we should be able to posess pretty much anything that an infantryman can carry. If you get right down to it, we should be able to have anything an infantry PLATOON can carry, including crew-served weapons.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:21:27 AM EDT
Its a touchy subject with no easy answers. You might say that anything goes, but you probably don't live next door to a drug dealer that inherited his house from his murdered mother (as I do). IF reasonable crime laws were in place and inforced, I would draw the line at "small arms" up to 50 cal. Three shot burst would be viewed as the same as semi-auto as many states already do(but not fed.). I think gun ownership should be "regulated" (man thats an ugly word!) by laws written and enforced that pertain to conduct with firearms. e.g. If you use a gun in the commission of a crime(felony), you spend 20 minimum in jail so the law about felons not being able to own guns becomes irrevalent. This is an over simplificaton, of course
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:36:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kindstranger: Its a touchy subject with no easy answers. You might say that anything goes, but you probably don't live next door to a drug dealer that inherited his house from his murdered mother (as I do).
View Quote
No I don't, but if she were armed? He might be resting peacefully today instead of her.
IF reasonable crime laws were in place and inforced, I would draw the line at "small arms" up to 50 cal.
View Quote
That's the way it is now, thanks to GCA '68. Want to name for me how many 20mm cannons were used in crimes before then?
e.g. If you use a gun in the commission of a crime(felony), you spend 20 minimum in jail so the law about felons not being able to own guns becomes irrevalent. This is an over simplificaton, of course
View Quote
That's ludicrous, what difference does it make what was used to commit the crime? Murder is murder and robbery is robbery. Once you are released from jail, full rights should be restored. If you can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are you walking the streets to begin with?
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:36:57 AM EDT
whatever the hell you want
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 7:11:02 AM EDT
all of them
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 7:43:21 AM EDT
slings (with foam pellets) and bows (provided the arrows are soft-tipped) Why do we need weapons? Only neanderthals need to kill stuff. [;)]
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:01:34 AM EDT
I agree with slugbait,
All of them
View Quote
Especially things that blow up [}:D] [img]http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/pics/1200/1236.jpg[/img] Ice
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:08:58 AM EDT
Anything that when used a single use produces the equilvalent of 250kg of TNT or less. For example, a single shot from a handgun, or a single rocket from an AT4 would both qualify as protected since their explosive power does not exceed 250kg, thus both the rocket launcher and handgun would be legal to own, on the other hand, 2000lb Mk84 iron bombs would not be protected, since a single bomb produces more than the equilvalent of 250kg of TNT worth of explosion. Anything above 250kg and you are just wasting good explosives that should be saved for Knob Creek. Kharn
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:09:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kpel308: Me love you long time! (Sorry, GunMonkey, I just watched FMJ!) Seriously, I believe that any non-strategic weapon should be able to be owned by anyone. The battle of Lexington/Concord wasn't about them confiscating muskets. The British were trying to confiscate their CANNON.
View Quote
BINGO!
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:11:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shazbat:
Originally Posted By kindstranger: Its a touchy subject with no easy answers. You might say that anything goes, but you probably don't live next door to a drug dealer that inherited his house from his murdered mother (as I do).
View Quote
No I don't, but if she were armed? He might be resting peacefully today instead of her. It was a spousal murder/ suicide and both her hands were holding the pizza box when she was shot in the back of the head in her driveway. Other than that, you are correct, sir.
IF reasonable crime laws were in place and inforced, I would draw the line at "small arms" up to 50 cal.
View Quote
That's the way it is now, thanks to GCA '68. Want to name for me how many 20mm cannons were used in crimes before then? How many citizens can afford a 20mm cannon? I'm concerned about a weapons based caste system.
e.g. If you use a gun in the commission of a crime(felony), you spend 20 minimum in jail so the law about felons not being able to own guns becomes irrevalent. This is an over simplificaton, of course
View Quote
That's ludicrous, what difference does it make what was used to commit the crime? Murder is murder and robbery is robbery. Once you are released from jail, full rights should be restored. If you can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are you walking the streets to begin with?
View Quote
My point is, if you commit a violent crime that infringes on the rights of others, you go to jail and stay there for a long time. When you get out, you have full rights, THAT IS MY POINT!!!!!! If you read my post carefully, you will see that we agree about most things..... except the 20mm cannon thing. Regardless of how my thug neighbor became my neighber, he is still a dangerous menace to society who has YET to be CONVICTED of a felony simply because he is not far removed from being a minor and the legal system has been soft on his previous charges. (I have his record and it is very disturbing) Again, if he were in jail like he should be, then most gun laws would be irrevalent. And, as a peace offering, I would want you have a 20mm cannon. [:)] I really don't have a problem with that per say, but the line has to be drawn somewhere well below the conventional/ NBC line or having a Ryder truck with a 220 gallon ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb would be perfectly legal [:)]
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:42:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kindstranger: My point is, if you commit a violent crime that infringes on the rights of others, you go to jail and stay there for a long time. When you get out, you have full rights, THAT IS MY POINT!!!!!!
View Quote
Ok I see where you say full rights would be restored, sorry. But you did imply IMO that you wanted stiffer penalties for those that would commit crimes using a firearm, if that's the case - I disagree strongly. [smoke]
I really don't have a problem with that per say, but the line has to be drawn somewhere well below the conventional/ NBC line or having a Ryder truck with a 220 gallon ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb would be perfectly legal [:)]
View Quote
And that would be wrong because....? [:D]
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:53:42 AM EDT
Anything that can fit on a flatbed semi trailer. That includes tanks and aircraft. No chem, bio, or nuke. If someones got the cash and they want an Abrahms they should get one. Or maybe a harrier, F/A-18, whatever. Guncrazy223
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 9:04:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2001 9:00:11 AM EDT by Madison]
The Founders discussed all this, and even federalists like Hamilton agreed that ..The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." It's not about making us *equal* with goverment. The idea is, ALL firepower belongs to us, NOT government. A standing army was called "the bane of liberty." And they knew whereof they spoke: The first President to use troops to kill Americans protesting unjust taxation was Washington. Let me simplify life for you: There is only one crime or sin -- hurting others unnecessarily. There is only one rule -- the Golden Rule. Now that I've eliminated any future need for preachers and politicians, we have more time to discuss... [:D] Mere possession of ANYTHING is not bad. The (unprovoked) ACTION of harming someone with it is bad. Placing limits on arms is pointless and futile. Do we want to ban nukes (there really is a city in California where having a nuke inside city limits is illegal and carries a whopping $500 fine)? Come on, if Bill Gates wants a nuke, he'll have one. Banning the really big stuff is pointless, because the really big guys who might want it are pretty much capable of ignoring any ban. What on Earth makes us believe we should trust government with the BIG weapons, while we can only be trusted with small ones? I have one HELL of a lot better track record than government, when it comes to misusing weapons and/or murdering citizens. No, there's no practical way to put limits on weapons and still be consistent with the Second Amendment. Granted, I don't really like the idea of a lot of neighbors having smallpox in the fridge or a nuke in the basement, but it's not really very likely -- and even my least stable neighbors are probably less dangerous than the minions of Government. Face it, it's a dangerous world. I'd worry less about an APC or RPG or a TOW in my neighbor's hands than I do about the APC's held by some police departments. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Was that Jefferson? Where's my list of quotes???? [>:/]
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 9:13:23 AM EDT
Anything that is carried/used by a soldier.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:22:43 PM EDT
My philosophy is that if you can pick it up and carry it. It should be legal. Exceptions: Nukes, Bio or Chemical Weapons.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 9:36:54 PM EDT
Anything that a typical unit of the military has access to, tanks, machine guns, aircraft, explosives included, but excluding nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. This would solve the problem of the 220 gallon ammonium nitrate bomb because it is not something regular military units have access to, thus it is illegal.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 8:52:46 PM EDT
"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." Doesn't say ANYTHING about limiting legal arms there or anywhere else in the Constitution - therefore all arms must be legal in citizen's hands. Remember: the most powerful weapons in the USA were owned by [i]citizens[/i] at the time this country was founded, and the founders made it clear they intended it to pretty much stay that way.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 9:04:29 PM EDT
This seems to be the "correct" interpretation of the 2nd by people familiar with the Founders writings and original intent. The purpose of the 2nd was to protect the citizens right to own the same weapons carried by the standing army, so we should be allowed to own any weapon that's not crew served. Boy if this were only true..... crash.
Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman: Anything that can be carried by an infantryman.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 11:08:16 PM EDT
Never understood the whole "possession is a crime by itself" logic. Isn't unjustified homicide, assault, battery, etc. illegal anyway? So what if you use an AT-4? I can kill 50 people right now with my car if I want. (can you say crowded city sidewalk?) It's already been proven that a 757 is much more deadly than an M-16. Just another example of the will of silly little children taking precedence over serious minded MEN. I REALLY would like an M-240 and a LAW or two though; just for fun.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 11:14:55 PM EDT
All ..... No nukes!!!!!
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 11:25:26 PM EDT
"Is there a limit to what we as civilians should be able to posses?" Yes! you talk about guys like Bill Gates getting fighters and such,we can't have that the founders idea was to stay at a type of stand off. If the Gov. let any body with the cash get tanks and jets we would be like Afghan with on buch fightin g it out with the other for power all the time. But I don't really see how small arms would be a big deal if oter people had them so you don't have one guy that could shoot up the hood and nobody could stop him. We all know that if ever one had a gun everbody would be really nice to each other[:D]
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 11:33:39 PM EDT
This very question is still being debated by legal scholars. My theory is that any modern weapon of military utility (the Miller standard) that is analogous to those privately owned and carried in 1791 should be legal. The problem that you run into is that this allows people to own artillery and warships...because those were privately owned in 1791. This would not fly, unfortunately. I think just about any man-portable weapon should be legal if one wishes to preserve the true purpose of the 2nd Amd.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 4:56:11 PM EDT
Anything that the "other guy" has, and anything that our paycheck can buy.
Link Posted: 11/12/2001 5:05:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schv: But the majority of people(non-ar-15 members) believe that military assault rifles, especially full-auto versions should not be available to the public.
View Quote
The full auto version IS the military assault rifle, everything else, including non-converted AR15's, are Sport Utility Rifles. The military does not use semiauto only rifles as standard issue. The M16A2 is select fire with 3 round burst, while other versions such as the M16A3 and M4 carbine offer full auto.
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 5:39:16 PM EDT
Any weapon system I think is cool and can afford. Have wanted an RPG-7 for a LONG time.
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 6:11:13 PM EDT
Any Arm and most Non-Arms. I define an arm as: Any device that expels a projectile, whether or not that projectile is a Sabot, Hollowpoint, AP, or Explosive. Also includes knives, clubs, etc... Non-Arms: Any Bomb, or other device of indiscriminate killing. All Arms meaning any Firearm, Knife, Club, etc... Most Non-Arms means anything that is a non-arm, but is detonated or projected for impact or timed detonation by the person utilizing the Non-Arm. This means: No Land Mines, except Claymores (Switch Detonated Rather Than Pressure) No Bombs Greater Than a certain explosive power. I'm not sure what 250 Kg is, but I lean more towards a definition that is dependant on how isolated the bomb is. No bombs in Cities, etc... But, in the coutry or mountains bombs would be OK. Don't risk your neighbors lives too. No Nuclear or Biological Weapons. Certain limited Chemical Weapons would be fine: Napalm, Chlorine Gas, Poison, etc... I believe the truest test is how discriminate the weapon is: 1) Is it primarily used to kill a single person/target. 2) Is it primarily used to kill a group smaller than a squad or a vehicle. 3) Is it used to kill groups smaller than Platoon size or Convoys. 4) Will it kill anything within a given blast zone. 5) Can it be controlled before or after it is released. For example do you fire at person A and it hits where you fired or do you release a germ and it kills anybody who contracts it. Answer these questions. 1) Definitely should be 100% legal. 2) Should Be Legal Outside Populated Areas. 3) Should Be Restricted With A Shall-Issue Lisence. 4) Anything That kills beyond 100 Yards should Be Illegal. 5) Definitely Illegal to own NB weapons. C Weapons should be restricted to those that dissipate quickly in an open environment.
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 6:15:04 PM EDT
Crimes involving weapons should carry larger sentences. If the ATF were to prosecute evry thug who robs a liquor store for illegal weapons charges, we'd have 100+ Years sentences for Armed Robbers, Rapists, etc... Violent Felons should be barred.
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 8:50:21 PM EDT
Any weapon that can be safely operated by a single person, designed or redesigned to fire an inert projectile. (40mm grenade launchers count... have licensing requirments for the grenades, but let those who just want a 40mm shotgun alone.)
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 8:37:43 AM EDT
would the heavy weapons have to stay in the right lane on the freeway???
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 8:45:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OregonShooter: would the heavy weapons have to stay in the right lane on the freeway???
View Quote
As you know OS, that "law, guideline, whatever" doesn't apply (or is ignored) in OR anyway. ;-)
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 10:33:32 AM EDT
Anything should go, as long as its not nuclear. -SS
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 10:56:40 AM EDT
Anything that doesn't have a trailer hitch..
Top Top