I am hoping that it was just the night crew that had such extreme views and that most of the people here have reasonable views. Please share.

1) Do you support allowing people to purchase and own anti-aircraft missiles?
From another post:


2)Do you think there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the purchase and ownership of machineguns?

3)Should there be age restrictions on the purchase of weapons?

4)Should people be allowed to buy explosive devices without restrictions?

5)Are there weapons of any kind that should not be available to the general public?

[b]The ONLY weapon law that is needed:[/b]

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. -2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

I'll go first.
1) No, as in hell no.
2) No, the general public should be able to own machine guns but the destructive power of these weapons needs to be respected. Waiting periods for in depth background checks are entirely reasonable.
3) Yes, I don't want my 13 year old neighbor owning a glock.
4) No.
5) Yes, I don't think people should own anthrax or tanks.

Seems like the best law we have!! I will stand with that one!

Yes.  If the original intention of the second amendment ever has to be implmented, these are a must.



Absolutely.  Ad the supreme court so eloquently said in US v. Miller, the second amendment ONLY protects the right to own arms that bear a relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia.  The standard arm of our country's forces should be available to all citizens, and that arm is the M16 select fire rifle.



Just like the right to vote.  Eighteen years old for purchase of any arm.



Yes, for the same reason as #1.



Weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biologicals.  Anything else (small arms, crew served weapons, artillery, tanks, even ships) is fair game.

I believe that any individual weapon that the average infantryman would carry into battle should be available to all citizens as long as they are not criminals or mentally unstable.  This would include fully automatic weapons.  This would not include missles, tanks, artillery, etc.  I'm undecided on the explosives.  There should be an age limit of 18.  If you can vote and be drafted, you have the right to own a firearm.

misanthrope747

I think citizens should be permitted to own all weapons that the government conceivably could use against its own citizens. I suppose this would exclude weapons of mass destruction, and only those weapons.

Absolutely, it's all or nothing.  It doesnt really matter either way though.  These things would be so insanely cost prohibitive that youd have to decide whether you want that shiney new car or one shot out of your Stinger.



None whatsoever.  I know I can be for more efficient using semi auto fire.  Machine guns are just so damn fun.  When was (seriously) the last time a machine gun was used in a crime?  Its all about handguns and concealability.  If criminals favored machine guns, theyd use them.



16, old enough to drive a car and your parents sign off on your license, your responsible enough to own a gun, a machine gun, a goddamn M1A1 Abrams.



People already can, go to New Mexico.  Now if youre referring to plastiques, gels, ANFOS, etc, then yes.  People should be able to own them without restrictions.  When was the last time and how many times has someone used exotic explosives to to intentionally kill other people?  I cant remember, they used a homebrew concoction.



If you can afford to buy it, maintain it, and operate it responsibly, you should be allowed to own whatever the hell you want/can buy.

We should be able to own ANY type of firearm that we choose to.
We should be able to own any type of aircraft, tactical vehicle, or ship (with the EXCLUSION of nuclear ships) that we can afford.

ALL WMD's are off limits, due to the very real dange that they present, such as accidentaly releasing anthrax in your town.

As far as laws go, you should be imprisioned for using a firearm in a crime, with NO chance of early release, and once you have paid your debt (and PROVED THAT YOU ARE REHABILITATED) all your rights ae restored. Violate the law a second time, and you are exocuted

One thing we're forgetting is that in the practical world most people wouldn't buy those types of weapons anyway from a purely economical standpoint.  Even a common everyday missles cost in excess of a million dollars plus the infrastructure to crew, maintain and fire them.  Tanks are the same way.  Artillary shells cost thousands of dollars per shot.  Hell even a .50 cal is above the reach of the average shooter both in initial cost as well as the cost to shoot the thing.

It would take someone with far more than average resources to even buy one of these advanced systems let alone fire them.  I think that the simple laws of economics are more than sufficient to regulate these weapons.  

No restrictions on anything except NBC weapons. If I want a .22LR revolver, M16, M2HB, M109A6 SP howitzer, M1A2 Abrams, etc, then as long as I have the money to buy it and I'm 18 or older I should be able to. No background checks, no permits, no 4473s, no waiting periods - I walk into the store, pick out what I want, pay for it, and leave immediately without filling out one scrap of paperwork, other than perhaps the credit card slip.

Quite frankly, I don't care if felons get weapons because of the lack of restrictions. Restrictions don't stop them from doing anything and only inconvenience the law-abiding. The actions of the law-abiding shouldn't be limited because of what criminals do, anyway.

We need guidelines that are reasonable and based in principal. Try this on for size:

"The people should have free and unfettered access to any weapon that is available to the Government THAT COULD BE USED FOR INTERNAL REPRESSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL."

This would seem to allow most any small man-portable arm (maybe up to LAW rocket, explosives, grenades etc.), thus enabling the people to effectively resist an oppressor. On the other hand, WMD and other high-end military hardware would be unavailable (probably impractical anyway).

Of course, no go for crooks, fruitcakes or kids.

Fair enough, but please provide a solid definition of "mentally unstable".  

Many people who are opposed to citizen-owned firearms would classify those who are NRA members as mentally unstable.  For that matter, they might classify anybody who has ever owned, or wishes to own a gun as mentally unstable.  How about somebody who has undergone treatment for depression, anxiety, etc.  Are they mentally unstable, despite having overcome their problems?  What about somebody who was ordered to attend anger-management therapy for having a shouting match with his boss, in order to keep his job?  Or, how about a woman who was raped a decade ago, and had to see a psychologist to help her get her life back?  Should these people be forced to forfeit their rights?  Or maybe they should be allowed to exercise only certain rights?

I think the term is far too ambiguous and open to interpretation to allow it to be used as a basis for "legislation of rights".  

I don't believe that weapons laws work.

With that said, dudes who just got out of jail on a day pass should have to break a law to get anything approaching an effective weapon.  Gun laws don't do it as 'weapons' can include bricks, rope, pipe, knives, or the ol' broken beer bottle.  Registration is hogwash.  Licensing is a prelude to confiscation.  And criminals really don't obey the laws anyway - that's why we call 'em criminals in the first place.  

In fact, no expensive gun laws can make any possession of a gun or other weapon by a criminal any more illegal than a simple court order not to possess weapons, directed against those who society has a right to fear.

So:
1) RPGs can be used against aircraft, as can .22LR bullets, both of which are legal under today's law.  So can shoes packed with homemade explosives.  None of these weapons have proven as deadly to aircraft occupants as the recent use of credit cards and box cutters against unarmed passengers and flight crews on Sept 11.

2) Some people shouldn't have ANY weapons.  Unfortunately, there is no known means of preventing criminals from committing crimes or obtaining goods on the black market, which is in fact run by criminals, for criminals.  Suggesting otherwise is mere fantasy.  Any restrictions should be minimal and unobtrusive to the rest of us.  Start by repealing the ban on new MGs.

3) Most gun crime is committed by older teens and young adults.  However, society's wars are also fought by kids in that age group.  Depriving kids of gun experiences until after their prime enlistment years weakens the defenses of the nation and doesn't affect criminals in the least, except to give them yet another market for illicit guns.  Owning guns legally actually encourages responsible behaviour.

4) Some sort of training course might be nice.  Folks who carp about easy access to explosives often aim at reloading and/or stump removal supplies, when if they just thought about it for a minute they would find that there is much more explosive energy in the gasoline they put in their cars.  Care to account for every gallon of gasoline you use?

5) Weapons whose very presence in private hands pose a demonstrable risk of tremendous harm to the public *without any benefit* shouldn't exist in private hands.  All of us should be familiar with the benefits to society of our weapons.

Honestly? I think that weapons laws should always be up to the landlord.

  I used to know the owner of a bar in MS. He demanded that everyone armed hand it over to be put in the safe until they left. NO exceptions! It seemed fair, & no one had a problem with it.


  Our problem is that we've been listening to so many liberal government shitheads for so long that we've forgotten who the [b]real[/b] landlord is...

I'm thinking weapons of mass destruction should be illegal for private ownership. Other than that, any law abiding citizen should be able to own whatever they feel comfortable with. If they can afford it...

We already have that--it's called Article II of the Bill of Rights (aka the 2nd amendment.)

Since that hasn't seemed to work, exactly why would you expect a LAW passed by congress to do the job?  Congress can always go back and CHANGE the law.

1.- No
2.- No
3.- Yes
4.- No
5.- Yes

Here is my problem with the whole "mental fitness" requirement. I, along with many other Americans, take Paxil for reasons other than depression. I suffered from TERRIBLE debilitating stress headaches. The most effective treatment for me has been Paxil, Toprol XL (for blood pressure regulation), and Amidrine when I still get the occasional migraine. So, if you use meds prescribed to categorize people as mentally fit or not, many of us are unjustly disqualified. And as another poster said, who judges mental status? Am I unfit if I belong to NRA? If I am in a "cult" because I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? If I yell when I get mad? What standards do we use, and who do we allow to set those standards? Tom set up a VERY simple law. EVERY FIT CITIZEN IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL MILITIA....

Scott

Perhaps a simple rule of thumb:

Anything civilian law enforcement has is fair game.

I specify civilian law enforcement because military law enforcement gets some pretty cool toys that I'd rather not see in the hands of persons not subject to the UCMJ.

[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif[/img]

Many here seem to express a position of ABSOLUTE rights regarding the RKBA, which is inconsistent with the rest of the rights protected by the Constitution.

There is no absolute right to free speech or freedom of the press (perjury, slander, conspiracy, treason, etc).

There is no absolute right to religious worship (Incan human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, etc.).

There is no absolute right to privacy or property (search warrants, just cause, eminent domain, etc.)

There is no absolute right to be elected President (national origin, age, term limits, etc.).

There is no absolute right to vote (voter registration guidelines, convicted felon status, age restrictions, etc.).

There is no absolute right to life (death penalty, self-defense justification, etc.).



This extreme postion of an absolute RKBA is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution and is just plain irrational.

For those who believe RKBA is absolute (unrestricted machineguns, grenades, dynamite, AA missles, NBC weapons, howitzers, etc.) why do  you think this particular right is absolute, when no other right in the BOR is absolute?

Hey DarkHelmet, why do you support registration? What possiple use is there for a registration database other then confsication? They can already track guns used in crimes:

Hey, someone committed murder with this Glock 17 serial number XYZ. Hey Glock, where'd you send the gun with serial XYZ? We sent it to Adam's Fireams Distribution. Hey Adam, where'd you send the gun with serial XYZ? We sent it to Bob's Gun Store. Hey Bob, who bought the gun with serial XYZ? We sold it to Joe. Hey Joe, what happened to your gun with serial XYZ? Umm.... You're under arrest for murder!
There you go. There are already laws that gun-releated businesses must tell LEOs who they sold a given gun to when asked. So why does the Government need to know who has what guns?

Osama Bin Laden had far more than average resources.

To what right? No US civilian has the right to buy an antiaircraft missile right now as far as I know.
Assuming for a second that a US citizen could buy an unrestricted AA missile:
Without any background checks or purchasing requirements how would you know that he was not a US citizen? What is to stop somebody like John Walker from buying it for him.

On the other hand, there is no mention made of registering your mouth, hands, printing presses, books, etc, in the Constitution, so firearms registration is inconsistent with the rest of the rights protected by the Constitution.

There would be no absolute right to firearms ownership - harm someone with a firearm and you go to prison. I think the point made by many posters is that you should be able to own [b]any[/b] kind of firearm you want and without the gov't getting involved, but if you harm someone with it you're dead meat. That seems to be consistent with the "restrictions" placed on the rest of our rights.

Can language be libelous or slanderous if it's true?

Sometimes you just have to take risks as part of living in a free society. If safety is more important to someone than freedom, America may not be the best place to live.

Some of the stuff in this thread is either absurd or borderline absurd.

We need one gun law. Don't commit a crime with a gun. That would pretty much take care of everything. That way there is no need for any other gun laws and decent folks are left alone and to their own devices. No pun intended.

That seems like it would be a pretty good rule of thumb.

Case in point:

jtw2, thedave1164, and Yankee1911: You are obviously very progun rights. Please put your "money where your mouth is" and write your senator in support of HB02-1410. It will give us more rights to carry concealed weapons in Colorado and will very likely pass with a little nudge.
Here is a link to some instructions I set up:
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=111649[/url]

Most of the responses I have seen do not express the position of an ABSOLUTE right at all.  Weapons of mass destruction were mentioned in MANY posts as being specifically not protected--this, in an of itself, disproves your claim.  But I'll play along anyway.




You missed "abortion" from that last one, but I digress.  The thing you're missing here is, according to the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, ONLY weapons which bear a relationship to service in a well regulated militia are protected--this is hardly an absolute! (The 18th century definition of "well regulated" in relation to an armed body of troops, by the way, is "well trained")



I don't remember ANYONE in this thread saying "NBC" weapons were in bounds.  What you're missing here is that all of the above (with the exception of weapons of mass destruction) [b]are required by the modern fighting soldier[/b] and this is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment is designed to protect.

Limitation on ownership falls, amusingly enough, into the lower end of the spectrum--that 12ga duck gun your father left you, for example, is suspect--no one can make the argument that this is the proper equipment for today's soldier, though it certainly beats the heck out of nothing.  The M16A2, on the other hand, as our nation's standard battle rifle, enjoys the full protection of the 2nd amendment--it cannot be otherwise, else that particular sentence has absolutely NO meaning.

Remember--Article II of the Bill of Rights is NOT about sport shooting, hunting, or personal self-defense.  These things are merely enjoyable side-effects. No, the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizenry from tryanny, be it foreign or domestic, and MUST be judged with that history in mind.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
5. No

A weapon is a weapon. 9/11 should have demonstrated to anyone that people can come up with unique ways of destroying buildings or airplanes without a nuclear device or a bomb. Any form of state sponsored control of weapons will ultimately lead to the mess we have today. Instead of us owning SAMs or machineguns, the government does and they have a tendency to do what the hell they want with them, at our own expense in terms of money and lives. The government controlling weaponry is far more dangerous than the general populace having access to everything possible. The 20th century showed us all what governments are capable of, when people throw their property rights away.

themao [chainsawkill]

First I do agree with you that registration of all firearms is total BS. It's just a list to be used later for confiscation.

But I still disagree that the Constitution provides you the absolute right to own ANY weapon, even if you just hide it under your bed and never use it.

Example:
[i]"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,"[/i]

Now there are NO qualifying clauses to this amendment (much like the RKBA),  BUT this still does NOT provide you the right to say ANYTHING you want.

You cannot "conspire to murder" someone -  regardless of whether that murder actually occurs or not.

You cannot "plan the violent overthrow of the USA" - regardless of whether that coup actually occurs or not.

You cannot seriously "threaten to assault" someone - regardless of whether that assault actually occurs or not.

You cannot "incite a riot" - regardless of whether that riot actually occurs or not.

Likewise, the RKBA does NOT provide you the right to own an AA missle -  regardless of whether you use it to down a jet liner or not.



Again, just my $0.03

I already have even though I really don't like the "sheriff can deny the permit for a good reason" language.  Actually Stan Matsenaka's (I think that's how you spell it) law firm is my family lawyer so I've been bugging him for killing Ken klouber's bill for years.  Stan is behind this one cause he's running for congress in a district that is very conservative and pro-gun.  Stan runs the Senate and the bill has passed the house. This bill will pass.  Owens will sign it because he knows that he's pissed off most of the state due to his turncoat stance on RKBA.  He's going to try to win us back because he knows that w/o the rest of the state backing him Denver will elect another demorat for governor.  Personally I will never vote for that SOB again.

Rickyj,

Just to let you know, I do put my money where my mouth is.  I have written many state legislators regarding HB 1410, as my message in your link states.  Although I don't hold the same opinion as you do that HB 1410 is a step forward for Colorado gun owners, rest assured that I'm VERY involved in the political process to protect gun owners' rights.

I don't wish to hijack this thread, and if you want to talk to me about my political participation, my email address is visible.

[red]Do you support allowing people to purchase and own anti-aircraft missiles?[/red]  No.  Where would they practice?
 
[red]Do you think there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the purchase and ownership of machineguns?[/red] No.  But the $200 tax stamp and ban is ridiculous.  The background check requirement seems to have worked quite well since '34, but I'd get rid of the "chief LEO signoff" requirement too.

[red]Should there be age restrictions on the purchase of weapons?[/red]  Yep.  18.  Until then, if they want one, the parent decides if they're mature enough.
 
[red]Should people be allowed to buy explosive devices without restrictions?[/red]  No.  But smokeless powder and primers shouldn't be classified as "explosives" either.
 
[red]Are there weapons of any kind that should not be available to the general public?[/red]  CBN munitions, land mines, airdrop munitions etc.  If it's a man-portable firearm, I don't really have a problem with it.

I see your point, but IMO "inciting a riot", "planning the overthrow of the gov't", etc, are the same as trying to kill someone and failing - it may not be murder, but it's attempted murder and that's a crime as well. Owning a gun, to me, is similar to having the means to incite a riot, plan a coup, etc, but not doing it.

Maybe I'm just reading too far into the whole thing, though. I do admit to being "jut a tad" biased towards the subject of gun ownership and that may color my opinions.

In a similar reply to NH2112 above:

It is a crime to "conspire to murder" someone - [b]regardless [/b]of whether that murder actually occurs or not. If no murder occurs, no one is harmed and no one's rights are infringed, [u]but it's still a crime[/u].

It is a crime to "plan the violent overthrow of the USA" - [b]regardless [/b]of whether that coup actually occurs or not. If no coup occurs, no one is harmed and no one's rights are infringed, [u]but it's still a crime[/u].

It is a crime to "verbally threaten to assassinate the President" - [b]regardless [/b]of whether the assassination actually occurs or not. If no assassination occurs, no one is harmed and no one's rights are infringed, [u]but it's still a crime[/u].

Owning an AA missle is a crime - [b]regardless [/b]of whether you use it to down a jetliner.

NONE of the above actions infringes on ANYONE'S rights or directly harms ANYONE.

[b]If you believe owning an AA missle is your "right", then why not allow people to organize and plan terrorist actions against our people, plot military coups, conspire to commit assassinations? No one's harmed there either.[/b]

Why not just let the suicide-bomber/assassinations occur and THEN arrest the martyr - oh, he's already dead along with a dozen civilians and the President. Darn. Oh, well - nothing we could have done about that! Those martyrs had a right to organize, plan and conspire assassinations.
[i]I can't believe I'm actually arguing whether or not radical Usama bin Laden supporters or Mumia Abu-Jamal supporters should have the right to own all the AA missles they can afford in this country![/i]

I like what Pat Buchanan said:

The only firearms laws we should have are those against people who use them in commission of a crime. Period.
Any law-abiding citizen should be able to own any damn thing they want.
I don't really feel that some of the heavier stuff fall into the "arms" category though

I can not believe it either. I have a hard time believing that a lot of these people are actually serious though. How could you seriously rationalize the private ownership of AA missiles and tanks?