US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

a reply to: kurthall

Done and done.

goneoutdoors.com...

Good talk.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Wayfarer



A right to bear arms, is not obstructed, by the average citizen being only able to purchace weapons for hunting and home/personal protection.

Except you're forgetting the part about protecting against tyranny.

a reply to: Wayfarer

We have had some good discussions as of late. I don't want to take this into the abyss, but I think it's an important aspect of what you are looking at.

tanks-alot.co.uk...
Tanks can be bought.
Full Auto weapons can be bought. Right now, in places all over the globe, people own full auto weapons, and tanks.
Yet, how many of the shootings we are currently concerned with have involved hardware like that?

I'll let you answer and add anything you feel relevant before I post again.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi will come back from Congress's 10 day vacation next Monday to declare, "Ban ALL Guns!".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Pretty good for a car jack defense too I bet. Just point in the general direction and bad day for Mr meth head.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have noticed something on these boards. The same people who blame all guns and gun owners when these tragic and sometime preventable tragedies occur, are the same ones that insist that you cannot blame all Muslims when there is a terrorist attack. Terrorists are the exception to the rule to them, but a lone crazy that chooses mayhem, is the norm. It doesn't make any sense.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Does it say in the second what types?

NO.

Does it say how many rounds they can hold?

NO.

Does it say what they can look like?

No.

, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Operative word there?

ARMS.

There is no limit on the first to use pencils, and paper.

And yet the preferred medium in the 21st century is smart phones,tablets,computers, and the internets.

The question people should be asking is why is a right so clearly laid out being infringed?

We don't treat the first the same way?

We don't treat our right to voting the same way?

The usual suspects heads would explode IF we treat both of those the same way.

Background checked to speak, mandatory waiting period to speak, waiting months to make our speech quite.

Only one sentence is allowed at a time.

Only X number of words are allowed per sentence.

On and on.

Beyond ridiculous equivocating a right that's clearly spelled out in not just one amendment, but the rest

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Wayfarer



A right to bear arms, is not obstructed, by the average citizen being only able to purchace weapons for hunting and home/personal protection.

Except you're forgetting the part about protecting against tyranny.

Hey you know what, things have got to change. The guns these people are using have been mostly LEGAL. Tyranny? Really? Again when this was written gun powder and 3 rounds per MINUTE......

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Wayfarer



Any weopon that is automatic. If certain people really want those weapons, I think far more background information on those people should be done. For instance, lets say a guy wants a regular gun to protect his home, Background check, clean, over 21, no mental issues, fine.

Guy wants more than an ordinary weapon, but lives on a ranch and has a doomsday shelter, wants a couple of automatics, none military of coarse, background check, Clean, over 21 no mental issues, and an explintion with proof of somekind, for the purchace. Also a limit on how many can be legaly obtained per person.

That is at least something. I do not think any average person has the right to own a weapon intended to do one thing and fast, Kill as many people as possible. A right to bear arms, is not obstructed, by the average citizen being only able to purchace weapons for hunting and home/personal protection.
The 2nd amendment was written at a time when men were using gunpowder and slugs...it took time to reload every single bullet. You could maybe get 3 shots off per MINUTE.

you are aware that the current laws are written exactly like that, except it's a bit harder to get a full auto weapon, and they are stupid expensive.

a reply to: kurthall

So how can we stop mentally unstable people from getting them?

Why don't kids in Russia shoot up schools at the same rate?

How long would banning AR's take to effect gun deaths with a fire arm population of over 350 million?

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
"shall not be infringed"

Sounds like you want some level of infringement then?
No. There is already too much infringement on our God-given rights.

????????????????????
'God-given rights'???
The Second Amendment was, if I recall correctly, drafted by James Madison in 1791, not any kind of deity.
So, logically speaking, the best weapon should be a muzzle-loading musket or rifle.

a reply to: kurthall

No, they are not. Many are done with illegal weapons. As long as you push guns as the problem nothing will change. People, American culture, those are the actual culprits. Until you understand that you will never understand a real solution.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wayfarer

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi will come back from Congress's 10 day vacation next Monday to declare, "Ban ALL Guns!".

Stop being ridiculous.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, God given. That's the whole basis for the rights. That is why they can't be taken away.

a reply to: kurthall

Any weopon that is automatic

I guarentee that no joe schmoe off the street can walk into a gun store and walk about 15-20 mins later with an automatic weapon.

They are heavily regulated, and the ATF pays close attention on where they go.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: kurthall



Why don't kids in Russia shoot up schools at the same rate?

Exactly the right question.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, God given. That's the whole basis for the rights. That is why they can't be taken away.

The loud zooming noise you just heard was the sound of my point passing far, far, over your head. Try reading my post again.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Opinions are irrelevant, honestly, to a factual debate, but let's start where we should: If people want the 2nd Amendment infringed upon, they need to advocate for a constitutional convention to change it, otherwise it need be left alone.

But since you want opinions, I'll give you mine: Anything that can cause massive destruction of life and property should be something that is a permitted item. This includes both production and purchasing of bombs, grenades, and other similar explosive devices. I think that with those types of arms, it makes sense to be able to relatively track who and where these items are being purchased because of the nature of how most of our population lives (large, condensed areas).

As far as firearms go, I can not settle, honestly, on much of anything being outright banned in the U.S., and this includes things like magazine size or similar accessories.

I do not believe that we can regulate the hatred or mental fitness of individuals, and that is the core of the problem, not this or that type of firearm.

Furthermore, I do not think that states should be allowed to dictate which firearms can or cannot be purchased, and what accessories that they can or cannot have. I also don't agree with states (or the federal government) dictating that some public property and buildings can have weapons and others cannot--if it's public, it should be allowed. Private property is certainly up to the individual owner.

With all of that said, we need to get back to more focused prosecution of laws that do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment, like brandishing weapons, or assault/homicide with said weapons, and definitely we need to get harsher on illegal purchase and possession of firearms. Without appropriate deterrent in place, we can not expect that laws will not be readily disregarded by those prone to doing so. But the laws should only target actual crimes against another person, not something like gun control that limits the rights of the many because of the actions of the minute few.

As a side note, a bolt-action rifle is NOT a semi-automatic rifle.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

On the other side armed guards aren't the sole answer either. This is not a one and done plug and play issue.

I may be OK with a system of a protective order for me tally unstable people being able to have fire arms if the family has real concerns and there are failsafes for that being abused by just disgruntled family members.

I think ccl's probably she have more maintenence training and people need to be realistic about what a cc .380 can do in a mass shooting.

It's not just ban guns or arm teachers. This is a real problem. And it's not simple.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sorry. Your ignorance doesn't go over my head. The 2nd amendment is for defense against a tyrannical government. As government's weaponry improves so must the citizens.