What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:01:09 AM EDT

Currently we have all kinds of restrictions on buying unusual weapons (I'm not talking about NFA laws to purchase). No explosives over a certain amount, no hand grenades, no mortars, no grenade launchers, nothing over .50 cal, no anti-tank guns, no exploding rounds, no short barrel rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no cannons, no stocks on pistols, no machineguns, etc.....

If you could rewrite the laws, what would you allow honest citizens to purchase with a simple back-ground check (like when buying a pistol/rifle today)?

Here's my answer: I personally see nothing wrong with short-barrel rifles, sawed off shotguns, rounds over .50 cal as long as they don't contain explosives, and pistols with stocks. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:02:08 AM EDT

[#1]

Chuck Norris.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:03:21 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Chuck Norris.

One can't "own" Chuck Norris. Chuck is a natural resource meant for all to share.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:03:45 AM EDT

[#3]

NUKES

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:04:34 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Currently we have all kinds of restrictions on buying unusual weapons (I'm not talking about NFA laws to purchase). No explosives over a certain amount, no hand grenades, no mortars, no grenade launchers, nothing over .50 cal, no anti-tank guns, no exploding rounds, no short barrel rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no cannons, no stocks on pistols, no machineguns, etc.....

If you could rewrite the laws, what would you allow honest citizens to purchase with a simple back-ground check (like when buying a pistol/rifle today)?

Here's my answer: I personally see nothing wrong with short-barrel rifles, sawed off shotguns, rounds over .50 cal as long as they don't contain explosives, and pistols with stocks. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

Those guys are gonna flame you.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:05:25 AM EDT

[#5]

Tank + ammo

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:05:53 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.

They get them now even with regulation. If I wanted to make a SBR I could do it without the government knowing, but because I am a law abiding citizen I would go through the legal channels. A criminal wil not. If full-auto or selective fire weapons were to suddenly be made legal they would probably go for $4,000-$5,000 based on the demand alone. There is no need for a $200 tax.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:06:33 AM EDT

[#7]

anything the .gov has.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:07:55 AM EDT

[#8]

B-52H

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:08:12 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

+1

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:08:50 AM EDT

[#10]

The $200 tax bothers me. Think back to when it was WAY more than the cost of the weapon. It still is a joke when applied to a short barrelled shotgun or silencer. Nowadays you might think it's the cost of doing the background check, especially if you didn't remember that it was originally meant to keep the average joe from buying one in the first place.

Oh, the answer...

English bulldog. They should give you some time to get to that nice heavy table lamp.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:08:53 AM EDT

[#11]

A B-52 with ALCM's.... ok, well if that's too deadly then pre-ban ALCM's

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:09:53 AM EDT

[#12]

The deadliest weapon I have access to is my tool belt.

With a pair of dykes, a screw driver, and a pair of alabama speed wrenches, a knowledgable "operator" can reduce most any building to rubble in short order. No other weapons or explosives needed.

Guns are for the unknowledgable and lazy.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:10:04 AM EDT

[#13]

Nothing over 1 MT yield.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:10:28 AM EDT

[#14]

A brain. Without one of those you'll never be deadly, with one you can become the deadliest thing on the planet, but everybody needs a brain anyways.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:10:42 AM EDT

[#15]

a mutated cybernetically enhanced brain. also known as an "assault brain"

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:10:47 AM EDT

[#16]

Peacekeeper MX

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:11:20 AM EDT

[#17]

Probably a .38 and a 10/22 ... that's all.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:13:27 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
a mutated cybernetically enhanced brain. also known as an "assault brain"

EVIL EVIL OMG GOVORNMENT PROTECT US TAKE OUR FREEDOM JUST GET RID OF TEH EVIL BRAIN THINGIES

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:21:56 AM EDT

[#19]

I would drop the post '86 machine gun ban , but increase the $200 tax to reflect inflation and the true cost of the background check.

Short barreled rifles and shotguns would be no problem with a $25 to $50 fee.

I have a really crazy idea too. I propose that we enforce the billion or so laws that prohibit murder ,robbery and assault and leave law abiding , licensed owners alone.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:24:19 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I would drop the post '86 machine gun ban , but increase the $200 tax to reflect inflation and the true cost of the background check.

Short barreled rifles and shotguns would be no problem with a $25 to $50 fee.

I have a really crazy idea too. I propose that we enforce the billion or so laws that prohibit murder ,robbery and assault and leave law abiding , licensed owners alone.

if we enforce those laws then what would be the point of making a $200 tax into a $2000 tax? just to drive younger people out of the market? or to nearly destroy any incentive that firearm companies would have to build lots of machineguns to keep costs low?

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:24:54 AM EDT

[#21]

Anything short of WMD is fine by me.

Does anyone really think that it should be legal to sell WMD though? Mustard, sarin, VX gas? Anthrax, smallpox, Black Death? Weapons grade plutonium? Tactical nukes? ICBMs?

"Dude, let's go to the range and shoot some VX rockets!"

"Not busy this weekend, think I'll drive out to the silo and test-fire my Minuteman III!"

"OMG, TS has HTF, I'm going to airburst some Ebola over the local ATF office!"

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:26:01 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated.

So you'd feel alright then if said "scum" killed your wife with a shotgun he bought at Wal-Mart instead?

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:29:18 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:

. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated.

So you'd feel alright then if said "scum" killed your wife with a shotgun he bought at Wal-Mart instead?

I'm not married.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:35:54 AM EDT

[#24]

since nobody else said it yet,

a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

MLW>"<

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:36:49 AM EDT

[#25]

I prefer a phased plasma rifle to a plasma rifle but hey that's what makes horseracing

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:39:15 AM EDT

[#26]

MIND

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:41:51 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Chuck Norris.

One can't "own" Chuck Norris. Chuck is a natural resource meant for all to share.

but he got his ass killed in the ultimate showdown

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:42:28 AM EDT

[#28]

a .38 revolver and a 10/22

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:45:33 AM EDT

[#29]

Deadliest? If your dead, you're dead. There are no varying levels of leathality. Once you hit lethal, that's it.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:48:53 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated.

So you'd feel alright then if said "scum" killed your wife with a shotgun he bought at Wal-Mart instead?

I'm not married.

Okay, so "scum" kills you with a Walmart shotty instead of a FA.

Yeah, that makes life better.

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:51:47 AM EDT

[#31]

I already own the deadliest weapon known to mankind. I hide it in my pants.

i crack myself up. mmk

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:52:31 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I already own the deadliest weapon known to mankind. I hide it in my pants. i crack myself up. mmk

bad gas problems huh?

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:55:02 AM EDT

[#33]

Rail gun

And atomic annie, you would need top fill out a 4473 for it of course. You gotta execise some control you know

Atomic projectiles will still need to be registered on a form 4

FREE

Posted: 1/14/2006 6:55:08 AM EDT

[#34]

I would say an AIDS infected penis is pretty... but not available to women and with good reason.

Quoted:
Quoted:
I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated. However, I would fully support removal of all the 68 GCA and 86 restrictions for sale to citizens on imported and new manufacturered machineguns.
They get them now even with regulation. If I wanted to make a SBR I could do it without the government knowing, but because I am a law abiding citizen I would go through the legal channels. A criminal wil not. If full-auto or selective fire weapons were to suddenly be made legal they would probably go for $4,000-$5,000 based on the demand alone. There is no need for a $200 tax.

A ginormous +1!!!

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:13:34 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

. I personally feel that the $200 tax and full background check on machinegun sales is a good thing. It weeds out the scum that would purchase them on a whim at Wal-Mart if they were not regulated.

So you'd feel alright then if said "scum" killed your wife with a shotgun he bought at Wal-Mart instead?

I'm not married.

Okay, so "scum" kills you with a Walmart shotty instead of a FA.

Yeah, that makes life better.

What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:16:08 AM EDT

[#36]

Realistically I could do more damage with a pack of matches then I could do with any of my guns

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:17:28 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:18:32 AM EDT

[#38]

No bio ,chem only defensive
Explosives need to show knowledge/need
Standard check as we now have to prevent firearms and other weapons from felons,substance abusers,restraining orders ,and mental problemns. Some type of review to clear folks who have had restraining orders placed for spite (bad divorce ect)
Other than that restrictions only to what a law abideing citizen can afford.
Yeah- this will happen!

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:19:23 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

Dude, WTF? You sound like one of the goons at the Brady website. Based on what you said, why not just say poor people can't have guns? Why not just make it a law saying that all guns are worth $500? If you sell a gun for less then you go to jail. Your idea sucks and is an elitist snoob position that only makes you feel good, but such legislation wouldn't do jack shit to prevent or curb crime.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:20:49 AM EDT

[#40]

As a general rule, I should be able to legally own whatever the invidivudal soldier has. Rifle, automatice rifle, machine gun, submachine gun, heavy machine gun, grenade launcher and small rocket launcher.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizen to carry what the soldier carries.

That having been said, I see no reason why any individual cannot own a tank or artillery piece of mortar. It would be expensive, but that is an individual consumer decision.

I guess a crew serviced weapon like my heavy machine gun above is not really an individual weapon and is more like a mortar, so there may be a flaw in my logic. But what the heck, I am not up for confirmation to the SCOTUS.

Now, I definitley draw the line at NBC weapons. The may not be individually owned.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:22:21 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
anything the .gov has.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

I trust the Gov about as far as it trusts me!!!

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:24:50 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Yep, because a gangbanger empting his Mac-11 in 2 seconds is SO much more dangerous than he would be with a shotgun and 8 rounds of 00 buck.

What kind of machineguns do you think would be available for $300? Besides the aforementioned Mac? A full-auto Tec-9? OMG, I'm so scared.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:25:43 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Yep, because a gangbanger empting his Mac-11 in 2 seconds is SO much more dangerous than he would be with a shotgun and 8 rounds of 00 buck.

What kind of machineguns do you think would be available for $300? Besides the aforementioned Mac? A full-auto Tec-9? OMG, I'm so scared.

heh
a Hi-Point carbine, now with SELECT FIRE!
oh lordy I'm shaking in my boots!

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:30:44 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:

What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.
Dude, WTF? You sound like one of the goons at the Brady website. Based on what you said, why not just say poor people can't have guns? Why not just make it a law saying that all guns are worth $500? If you sell a gun for less then you go to jail. Your idea sucks and is an elitist snoob position that only makes you feel good, but such legislation wouldn't do jack shit to prevent or curb crime.

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:33:16 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:34:07 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
What the $200 tax prevents is some homey buying a $300 Keltec sub-machinegun in Wal-Mart, and then shooting up his hood or a bank etc., killing a bunch of innocent people. Sure he could kill people with a shotgun, but I think most people would admit that a full-auto weapon in the right hands, can be a devastating weapon, much more so than a semi-auto rifle/pistol or a shotgun.

Also, if machineguns were regulated the same as normal pistols, you'd start to see high quantities of machineguns on the streets. You'd see a whole new market pop-up of dirt-cheap $300 sub-machineguns being offered for sale from companies like Kel-tech etc....These would quickly become the weapon of choice for gang-bangers.

You do realize that controlled double taps are far more effective at killing large numbers of people and preserve your ammunition better than 'spraying' people at Walmart. Take a reputable carbine course and you will see that they don't teach 'spray and pray' type shooting. You've let yourself get sucked into the media distortion of the 'deadly machine gun'.

'Gang-bangers' can convert all the AR's and AK's they want to now. The FCG's for both can be widely sold without any restrictions (except for a couple of states).

Not flaming, just telling it like it is.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:37:09 AM EDT

[#47]

As a general rule, I'd say anything that takes up to a 5-man crew to operate. Tanks, yes, artillery, yes, fighter/bomber aircraft, no. Artillery was privately owned until well after the Civil War - maybe till the NFA. My main concern with aircraft is safety. Bombs just aren't accurate enough IMO. I think antiaircraft and antitank missiles should be available to citizens after a NICS check, but I'd be inclined to tolerate registration of those.

I believe that we are entitled under the Constitution, at a minimum, to unrestricted access to anything issued to or operated by individual infantrymen/Marines. Remember, the whole point is for the government, rather than the citizens, to live in fear.

ETA: As for the dirtbag issue it's simply fact that something approaching 90% of the people they shoot are fellow dirtbags. Such an episode is known as a "twofer," "N.K. (needed killing)" or "Shooting into Occupied Clothing."

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:37:43 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:41:12 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:

When I refer to the "$200 tax", I am referring to the $200 tax and all the background checks, finger-prints, LEO signatures required to purchase said machinegun. IMO, this is a much needed buffer-zone to keep machinegun sales regulated and non-prolific in criminal hands. Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?

you keep assuming that criminals would actually go through a gun shop to buy these.

It would be no different than it is right now. How many crimes are committed with machineguns today? Not many! Simply because machineguns are not cheap and readily available in large quantities to the civilian population. If regulation was removed from NFA weapons, and machineguns could be bought just like a pistol, all of a sudden you would see most gun manufactures offering machineguns for sale. Eventually, machineguns they would be just as assessable to criminals on the black-market as a normal pistol is today.

Posted: 1/14/2006 7:44:25 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Would you really object to a NFA background check and $200 tax, if you could buy a brand new MP5 for $1200 or an M16 for $850?
Do you really think a criminal, who is willing to pay $1,200 for an M16 is going to go aw shucks, I need $200 for da stamp? Hell no! All you are doing is artificially making guns less affordable to those who might not have the funds to purchase a FA weapon. It isn't really about making a FA affordable anyway, your idea that $200 more for a FA weapon would curb criminals from purchasing such weapons is idiotic.

You don't think a FBI/ATF/LEO back-ground check and signatures, in addition to finger-printing and photo, is going to deter a criminal from purchasing a machinegun through legal channels??

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Is The Deadliest Weapon An Honest Civilian Should Be Able To Own? (Page 1 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us