How far do you think gun legalization should go?

[PolyPartisan]

Personally, I feel that the Second Ammendment was primarly passed to protect the rest of the Constitution. I think that it was assumed that if the U.S. government failed to follow through on the Constitution, that the people would be able to rebel and regain control.

People who are for gun control fail to take into account that one day, the government will end. It will either end in anarchy, in which case weapons will be needed to regain order of the chaos, or it will end in a tyranny, in which case guns will be needed to regain control of the government. Either way, we're going to need some serious firepower in order to fight back. And what people fail to take into account is that this could happen in a century, or next year. Therefore, I believe that just about every weapon of conventional warfare should be legal to the public.

[Wadi66]

I agree Poly, the general public should be able to have any gun they want.

[Oi_Ve]

they seem like very viable possibilities to me, if not inevitable.

[Wadi66]

I agree but the anarchy and tyranny is a little far stretched.Anything is possible. The thing that keeps it from happening is an armed populace.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Therefore, I believe that just about every weapon of conventional warfare should be legal to the public.
That's a bit ludirious.

Nothing like having a TOW missile launcher, or an F-16 in your backyard.

Nothing is more dangerous than a weapon in the hands of someone who has not been trained to use it.

[PolyPartisan]

That's a bit ludirious.

Nothing like having a TOW missile launcher, or an F-16 in your backyard.

Nothing is more dangerous than a weapon in the hands of someone who has not been trained to use it.

An F-16 would be rather useless to someone who didn't how to use it, but not particularly dangerous.

But I do think that private militias should be allowed to own and operate military hardware.

[Wadi66]

Nothing is more dangerous than a weapon in the hands of someone who has not been trained to use it.But if you have the training, should you be denied the right to own one?

[Schmitty27]

Training can make it all the more dangerous. I'd be more afraid of an ace in a F-16 with bad intentions than a guy who escaped the mental facility and felt like goin for a joy ride.

[Wadi66]

My flight instructor said I'd make a great jet pilot... then he deflated my ego by reminding me a float plane wasn't meant to be flown like a jet... ho hum. And you think I'M a killjoy.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

The point I"m making is that its crazy to say people should be allowed to own and operate ANY military weapon's system.

My examples were intented to be overblown.
Anyhow,

But if you have the training, should you be denied the right to own one?Initially, no. However, violate any law once, then you kiss the right good bye.

But I do think that private militias should be allowed to own and operate military hardware.
Therefore, I believe that just about every weapon of conventional warfare should be legal to the public.Hmmmm, there's a difference between The Public and The Militia, and there's a difference between 'weapon of coventinal warefare' and Military Hardware.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment.

What I don't think is a great idea, is allowing people to own.....ooohhh say, Claymore Mines, or LAW missile launchers, or Semtex/C4, or frag grenades...... you get my drift.

[14edsullivan]

This whole arguement falls back to whether or not the 2nd was in place to protect "hunting rights" or "sporting rights" or was it to protect human rights, which are real. The idea of the 2nd is as was mentioned to protect the other ammendments and to make sure that a well armed populace could keep tabs on a government. It is NOT at ALL unreasonable to question the direction of our government as it is most definatly not moving in the right direction, and every one knows the numbers inrespect to genocide in the last century, if not here it is, 50 MILLION have been killed by their OWN governments, and the one united factor in ALL of these genocides is a government that could easily subdue and over power its citizens, and that was so easily done becase the citizens could not fight back because,.....dun dun dun, they had no guns becuase the government had taken them away. We must get back to a nation of minute as JFK actaully said. We need to get away from this idea that the 2nd is about hunting and that citizens are not "capable" of handling real military weaponary. Any one remember our "sister republic" of switzerland, they allow or at least did at one point their citzens to own antiaircraft guns, rockets and the like, and they are MUCH better of because of it, who hasn't involved them selves in any major conflict in europe? the swiss, how about still has the msot decentralized government? the swiss, i think that worked out for them good. I believe that all miltary implements should be allowed for citizen use and implementation, if the shit ever does hit the fan will you be able to stand up and fight against teh OGA with your O/U .410 bore shotgun? or even if the threat is not internal, what if the Chinese invade us"? Do you think that our military, 400 thou strong or whatever it is with all of them abroad will be able to protect all of us?

some food for thought
Ed

[Oi_Ve]

the Swiss also had a ridiculously low crime rate too (their idea of a crime spree is stealing a pack of gum, running across a wet floor, driving 5 miles over the speed limit, and then carelessly throwing the gum wrapper on to a lawn that says "Do Not Litter").
When everyone's got cool toys and knows how to use their toys then suddenly your local Gooch (yay old TV!) doesn't want to play rough.

[Liberty]

I agree but the anarchy and tyranny is a little far streched.


I just have two words that can prove that it is'nt

NEW ORLEANS


Anarchy: Broke out when the hurricane hit and the cops either left or joined the looting going on in the city. It was complete lawless for a time.

Tyranny: Almost succeded when somebody ( can't say who but have my suspicions ) tried to disarm the people but was quickly stopped by Nra and another group when they joined forces to stop the illegal confications.


Makes you think does it?

[RLord4268]

The point I"m making is that its crazy to say people should be allowed to own and operate ANY military weapon's system.

My examples were intented to be overblown.
Anyhow,
Initially, no. However, violate any law once, then you kiss the right good bye.
Hmmmm, there's a difference between The Public and The Militia, and there's a difference between 'weapon of coventinal warefare' and Military Hardware.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment.

What I don't think is a great idea, is allowing people to own.....ooohhh say, Claymore Mines, or LAW missile launchers, or Semtex/C4, or frag grenades...... you get my drift.

Even though it may sound ludicrous now, if civil war ever does break out, then the governmnet will have all those weapons and more to use against us, so we should at least even the odds. The founding fathers never inteded America to have a Standing army either, which could be used as a weapon against it's citizens. Hey it was nothing but a martial dictatorship by FEMA down there in NO. Whats to say that somewhere in the future the government cant use some other natural disaster, or unnatural to disarms us? Eh? :icon_ques

[the-man]

I agree Poly, the general public should be able to have any gun they want.

I'm for the second amendment but letting the general public have any gun they want is a really bad idea. here is an example. Ohio has a strong muslim population there now if they all decided to say screw it all, we would have a situation on our hands because they had anykind of guns they wanted machine guns, rpgs, bazookas, oozies.

Your idea should be only allowed to hunting rifles, shotguns, and some forms of pistols, and any other type of hunting weapon.

[14edsullivan]

I'm for the second amendment but letting the general public have any gun they want is a really bad idea. here is an example. Ohio has a strong muslim population there now if they all decided to say screw it all, we would have a situation on our hands because they had anykind of guns they wanted machine guns, rpgs, bazookas, oozies.

Your idea should be only allowed to hunting rifles, shotguns, and some forms of pistols, and any other type of hunting weapon.

wait, ummmm lemme think about this for a second, OH YA, they already have those weapons easily obtained on the black market :rolleyes: so ya, nice founding on the argument, why not even the odds? why not protect the citizens? why not give the good people a fighting chance against the scumbag of the world? terriosts both foreign and domestic.

hmmmmmm where does it mention in the second that we can only have sporting rifles, and who says im not hunting two legged vermin? some forms of pistols? why the decerning? both are capable of killing u, a .22 short is capable of killing, so that argument doesnt float, some people dont like learning from history and dont like learning facts in an arguemnt, a few one lineers to go with thise, an armed society is a polite society, and the best form of government is one that is afraid of its citizens

ed

[Wadi66]

I'm for the second amendment but letting the general public have any gun they want is a really bad idea. here is an example. Ohio has a strong muslim population there now if they all decided to say screw it all, we would have a situation on our hands because they had anykind of guns they wanted machine guns, rpgs, bazookas, oozies.

Your idea should be only allowed to hunting rifles, shotguns, and some forms of pistols, and any other type of hunting weapon. I'm not going to allow this thread to turn into another Muslim bashing. If your argument has any validity at all, it needs to stand alone irrespective of any group.

[IHL]

The second amendment does not stipulate the sort of guns that are allowed. The point to the second amendment is that we have the right to own those guns. This is based on the premise that law abiding people are not going to go around shooting people simply because they have the ability to obtain a gun.

It is just like the assault weapons ban that liberals passed under Clinton. The assault weapons ban restricted certain types of guns from being sold and limited the amount of ammo it could hold to 10 rounds. The thought was that Joe Six Pack didn't need to own an assault weapon. Maybe not. But I don't need to own a car that goes over 65 mph either. I also don't need two bathrooms in my house. I don't need a of the things that I have. The point it is, it isn't about need, it's about rights. I don't need to own several guns. So what. I like it. I want it. And I have the right to it. The assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime. And, that weapons ban has since expired. Guess what? We don't have people running around with machine guns in the mall. How can that be?

You have to remember the mind set of liberals. It's all about emotion. Logic plays little part in their decisions. It's about intent, not results. Emotionally, they feel warm and fuzzy banning assault weapons. Emotionally they see visions of grandma pulling out her Uzi and wiping out a school bus. The intent of the law is to reduce crime. So, as painful as it may be, try thinking like a liberal - pass another law banning weapons (good intent) and it will stop granny from wiping out the school bus (emotion). Now, think like a human - I mean a conservative. Passing all the laws you can think of isn't going to make a lick of difference if you are a criminal. Ban all the weapons you want. Limit the amount of rounds a gun can legally hold. Do you honestly believe that someone who would be willing to pull the trigger on another human being is going to stop because there is a law that says he can't have 11 rounds in the gun. Or that he won't walk into the mall with a gun under his jacket because there is a law that makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon? Of course not. But what happens when this criminal starts shooting and all of the law abiding citizens are impotent to help because they can not be armed? Who is going to stop this guy? The answer - no one. The cops will show up and surround the joint. There will be a few dozen hostages if they were lucky enough to survive. They'll eventually talk the guy out or maybe SWAT will take him out eventually.

Now, look at it another way. The general populace is armed. Let's say 40% of the people in the mall - the good guys, the guys and gals that have never broken a law and have had training in order to obtain their gun permits and required by law - are carrying a weapon. Are these people going to suddenly start blowing people away? Of course not. They have gone their entire life without committing a crime. These are the good guys. All of a sudden the bad guys starts shooting. How long is it going to be before he is taken out? I don't know, but I can tell you there will be a lot less dead people than there would be in the previous scenario. And I can already hear the liberals saying that we can't have people taking the law into their own hands and shooting people when ever they feel like it. Well, when someone around me is shooting at innocent people, I'll take the law into my own hands at that point.

It's a slipper slope to try to dictate which guns people can have and which they can't. Remember this - I can own all the guns in the world and it doesn't mean I'm going to kill anyone. Possession of a gun is not dangerous.

[14edsullivan]

An excellant post by IHL.
The number of Full Autos that were properly "legally" owned and involved in a crime has been 1, thats right, one. out of all the people that own these weapons own has been involved in a crime, and if memory serves me right it was even used in a shooting crime, it was some sort of crap abotu breaking one of the ludacris ATF rules. The number of .50 caliber weapons used in a crime, i beleive ZERO, no .50 caliber weapons have been used in crimes, much less the .50BMG with a 30 pound barrett, number of "assault" weapons used in crimes, i beleve the last number was a third of a percent.
look at the numbers, these bans do nothing to reduce crimes, to reduce crimes we must use law enforcement and stop crime by threat of force, if a criminal has ANY idea that you MIGHT have a gun they are most defanitly going to think twice before they attemp that crime, they would much less go against the person who he knows is unarmed.
The assault weapons ban, supposably a measure to reduce crime, is complete garbage. The ban only banned certain numbers of certain features, bayo lugs, flash suppersors, flash hiders, collapsable stocks, and "hi cap" magazines. This measure did NOTHING to stop crime in ANY way. These bans only hurt law abiding citizens, they do not hurt the crimnals, crimanals do not use these weapons, citizens do. All this ban does is hurt citizens, and especially citizens using these weapons from home defense or security contracting. All that was accomplished in this bill was it made rifles with the banned features so called "pre ban" rifles go up in price dramactily, then the gun manufactors just got rid of the "evil" and "criminal" features and continued to sell the same weapons. It accomplished nothing but putting more burdern on the citizen.
The NFA gun bans also did nothing to accomplish ANYTHING with crime. They DID NOT ban full autos, they DID NOT ban suppressors (silencers) they DID NOT ban short barreled rifles, pen guns, shorty shotguns, morters, "destructive devices" all they did was tax the hell outta them and made them a pain in the ass to obtain due to miles and miles of red tape, people still own full autos, suppresors, and mortar launchers, do you see them going on killing sprees? no, you see dog ass's killing people with the gun they stole from another dog ass,
all these politicians want to do, who are "for the people" want to do is ban more guns, and to put cameras in, when what they should be doing is allowing more guns to the citizens, offering tax breaks for ammo pruchases, opening public ranges, and selling military weapons direct to the public, which is what CMP should be, instead all you can get form CMP is m1 garands and 1903 springfields, why arent they selling m14's or t he m16A1 or 1911's why, because of the ball less politicians who dont get anything but giving themselves more power and making the people more dependant on the government and making more buerocracy and giving jobs to buddies.
Chicago is a grade A shithole, becuase daley just so happened to over the years cut off the balls of the police department. THey are underequiped and under managed. 80% of all jobs made above sargent are appointed by daley, so if you want to make lt or capt, u better know the mayor or you have no chance of recieving that job. They have their hands tied more and more every day. this is the same at all the police departments all across the nation. In a time by which we should strengthening the police force and we should be helping citizens out and time by which we should be closing the borders, we are doing the opposite, because our politicians are at such a damn disconnect with the people that they dont get it.
In this time of this country we should be doing everything we can to make the citizens more reafy to ward of a new enemy, a domestic enemy, an enemy that we cannot see and seeks to blend in and take us down from the inside, we cannot just depend on the military for protection, we cannot just dpend on the police for our protection, they cannot possibly protect everyone, they cannot be everywhere. The citizen must be able to defend itself and to protect itself and be able to survive by itself. It does not matter what you think about the police, they are not going to be able to protect you all the time, you must pick up your own slack, and the best way to be able to defend yourself in this day and age is a firearm, and if a firearm is the best way to protect your life, why not be able to own the best of firearms, and be able to protect yourself and yout family in the best way possible with the best weapons possible, if the shit ever does it the fan, if china invades, if the government decides to declare national marshall law and confiscate all weapons not heldd by the governemnt,
even small events can make chaos and mayhem and LOCAL anarchy to occour, anyone remember the LA riots, where the korean store owners stood their ground against the dogs that rioted and you know how they did that, with firearms, thats how. In NO, the first days after the hurricane you were on your own, there was no cops to call, and even if u did, they wouldnt be there in time, you must be prepared. People these days in general are too dependant on the government for not only protection but survival. These people bitching on the news about how we didnt have plans in place for emergencies, i bet didnt have emergencie plans themselves, no place to go if the shit hit the fan, no food no water, no guns, no flashlights, no coherent survival plan. This is what happend in NO also, people didnt know what to do when that hurricane hit, and that being an impoverished area, the people started to loot and the dogs that didnt leave had reign over the city, they took over, and if you were caught in the middle of that, gun ban be damned you would want one. WE dont need to have a national disaster or an invasion to get the idea that people need to be prepared and they need to have guns. shit happens all the time to all people. In some areas all it could take is one idiot to go with a gun to crowded area and open up to have your shit hits the fan situation, and thats EXACTLY the small scale thing by which the cops are definatly not going to be there in time, you are there and whoever else is with you, you must act, which is exactly why non descretionary concelsed carry is the way to go, they never know who will have a gun.
And as a final point i would like to go back to second ammendment, theres no where in the second by which there is ANY specification by which people can decide that certain weapons are not allowed, they say ARMS not certain arms, but all arms no specificity. there is no room within the constitution to make specific bans of any arms constitutionally sound.
in conclusion, the best form of government is one afraid of its citizens, and its better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it

Ed

[the-man]

I'm not going to allow this thread to turn into another Muslim bashing. If your argument has any validity at all, it needs to stand alone irrespective of any group.

i wasnt going to turn it into a muslim bashing.

[Wadi66]

i wasnt going to turn it into a muslim bashing.some people just need a spark. We have evolution and Muslim bashing in too many threads, ole' wadi is watching. :smile:

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I got no gripe with rifles or handguns.

I do how ever have issues with TOW missiles, shoulder fired SAM missiles, .50 cal machine guns, C4, Grenades, M1A1 Abrhams', Aircraft carriers......

Those things require training in order not pose a danger to anyone in your vicinity; neighbors, kids and such like.

Nothing like the thought of a 5 yr old playing catch with an AP65 grenade, to make your hair stand on end.

These things may be bought on the black market all day long. However, get caught with something that is bought on the black market, and you get a "Go to Jail card", well most of the time......ok some times.

Let anyone own these things, and you make the job of discerning someone's intent all the more difficult.

[Android]

look at the numbers, these bans do nothing to reduce crimes, to reduce crimes we must use law enforcement and stop crime by threat of force

Ed
I hear that, and we also need judges with some balls to put this kind of scum away. Not a jelly fish of a man who reduces sentence's releasing someone that he knows he will see back in his courtroom within 90 days.


And I can already hear the liberals saying that we can't have people taking the law into their own hands and shooting people when ever they feel like it. Well, when someone around me is shooting at innocent people, I'll take the law into my own hands at that point.


Its getting to the point that some people would like us to debate if we actually have the right to protect ourselves and others in those situations. Freaking ridiculous. How is it so difficult for some to see the need for personal protection? Just my two cents.