The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[eflatminor]

Yes, the nutjob down the street should have tactical nukes in his basement because "any weapon the government has, the people should have." You should be able to have weaponized anthrax and VX nerve gas because the government has it.

Bear arms means arms you can bear...as in your hands.



Which is what the government, and the people, had. Same as today. Whatever rifle, sidearm, or fireARM the military has, the people can also have. True there are regulatory and licensing requirements for some of those weapons, but the people can own the same firearms the military has.



And you know this how?

If you want to bring this discussion down to what weapons an infantry soldier carries should be available to ordinary citizens, that is more reasonable, yet still too much. The carnage that can be caused just by semi-automatic weapons is considerable, but at least it won't take out whole cities. Just scores of ordinary people. Coming soon to a theater or shopping mall near you.

Yet we know no gun control will stop the maniacs you're referring to. We see them in the US and even in other countries that have banned all guns.

So, if you wish to remain unarmed, cowering in the corner of a gun free zone when the maniac shows up, that's your choice. Please don't impose your cowardice on others.

Hmm, so as long as you can carry it, it's fine and dandy? Suitcase nukes OK then? Flamethrowers, RPG's, claymores, grenades, Stinger missiles? You want people to be able to carry that shit? You nutters should all move to Somalia where you can kill each other without interference.

Actually, the people can own those things. I know a guy that has a collection of tanks. So what, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone with them. What makes you think a government rule against owning a grenade would stop someone intent on using a grenade from getting one?

And how do we know that sensible gun control won't work? It hasn't been tried here. While other countries may have an incident now and then, no country has these horrific incidents as often as we do. We seem to have them every other week.

Because those cities and states in the US with the strictest gun control laws have the worst gun related crime. Further those other countries don't have "an incident now and then", they saw gun related crime SKYROCKET after their bans. And the mass killings you live in fear of? They happen in many countries. For example, some of the worst school massacre ever did not occur in America. They and other examples of mass killings happen in places with massive gun control and even an outright ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Point is, your rules will not stop a crazy guy from doing crazy things. So stop trying to disarm the good guys!

And not cowardice. I'm a gun owner and I have served in the armed forces of the USA. It's called common sense. If people can't get their hands on these weapons, there will be fewer mass killings.

Ah but that's the point. You can't un-invent something. Guns exist and the people will ALWAYS get their hands on them, because they always have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody who owns a tank owns an expensive vehicle that has a cannon that can't fire. Let home own it.

 

[eflatminor]

Anybody who owns a tank owns an expensive vehicle that has a cannon that can't fire. Let home own it.

His cannons fire just fine. Perfectly legal. He rents them out to movie makers and reenactment enthusiasts and for events centered around the shooting sports. He writes studies and writes about the history of tank warfare. Sometimes, he just comes to the range and blows something up. He isn't hurting anybody so why should you care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, he does! That he can fire a cap through a slagged barrel is not firing tank shells.

Why are you lying? Your bud is governed by certain federal and state laws that make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.

Anybody who owns a tank owns an expensive vehicle that has a cannon that can't fire. Let home own it.

His cannons fire just fine. Perfectly legal. He rents them out to movie makers and reenactment enthusiasts and for events centered around the shooting sports. He writes studies and writes about the history of tank warfare. Sometimes, he just comes to the range and blows something up. He isn't hurting anybody so why should you care?

 

[zeke]

Hey, you all might not have had as much fun with guns as I did growing up.

My Dad, RIP, was a whacked out Korean War combat vet with a drinking problem, a bad attitude and a gun. Or guns. Always had a gun under his car seat. Shoot outs in downtown. CCW arrests.
Suicide attempts.

Yes sir, you sure had to be glad he had a gun. Especially when he was drunk. And no matter how many DUI, CCW's, drunk and disorderly, even when he lost his gun to the police, he always got another in a matter of days. Or day.

I remember one time when I was a kid, the cops were raiding the house next door to ours. We didn't know the raid was happening. Night time. Guy next door makes a break for it out the back, cop at the back fires a shotgun that peppers the side of our house. My dad is out the door, gun in hand. Him and this cop draw down on one another. I remember the cop yelling; Police police. My dad didn't care. He was yelling for him to drop his weapon. Close call there.

Any other good gun stories out there? Say; thanks for sharing.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

This is bull shit............

What if the government or a Wealthy person needed to move a group of people to a camp but were unwilling to go, you now cant forcibly move them because they are ARMED, that means nobody is going to want to carry out the orders of the government or Wealthy person because they might die.

GUNZ are bad m-kay, we need to take gunz away, and let the government and Wealthy people do there jobs, and that is to control us.

 

[eflatminor]

Sure, he does! That he can fire a cap through a slagged barrel is not firing tank shells.

Why are you lying? Your bud is governed by certain federal and state laws that make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.

Anybody who owns a tank owns an expensive vehicle that has a cannon that can't fire. Let home own it.

His cannons fire just fine. Perfectly legal. He rents them out to movie makers and reenactment enthusiasts and for events centered around the shooting sports. He writes studies and writes about the history of tank warfare. Sometimes, he just comes to the range and blows something up. He isn't hurting anybody so why should you care?

I'm sure there are regulations, but that doesn't mean his tanks can't fire a live round, because they can. At least some of the tanks he has can. I've seem them work. It's...wait for it...a blast!

More importantly, no regulation can "make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.", it only makes it illegal to do so. Big difference! And really what is at the heart of the 'gun control' argument. No regulations or central control will stop anyone from doing crazy shit, only make it illegal to do so. We have PLENTY of laws that punish acts that harm others. Stop trying to prevent those acts by punishing law abiding people. It doesn't work!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Learn something every day. Here are some other posters in Answers who discuss this issue. They all seem to agree that federal permits and non-functional weapons unable to military rounds are part of the deal.

Notice the demilitarization required for private ownership for a former military weapons system.

Thanks, elfatminor.

Is it legal for civilians to own a tank? - Yahoo! Answers

Sure, he does! That he can fire a cap through a slagged barrel is not firing tank shells.

Why are you lying? Your bud is governed by certain federal and state laws that make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.

His cannons fire just fine. Perfectly legal. He rents them out to movie makers and reenactment enthusiasts and for events centered around the shooting sports. He writes studies and writes about the history of tank warfare. Sometimes, he just comes to the range and blows something up. He isn't hurting anybody so why should you care?

I'm sure there are regulations, but that doesn't mean his tanks can't fire a live round, because they can. At least some of the tanks he has can. I've seem them work. It's...wait for it...a blast!

More importantly, no regulation can "make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.", it only makes it illegal to do so. Big difference! And really what is at the heart of the 'gun control' argument. No regulations or central control will stop anyone from doing crazy shit, only make it illegal to do so. We have PLENTY of laws that punish acts that harm others. Stop trying to prevent those acts by punishing law abiding people. It doesn't work!

 

[PratchettFan]

This is bull shit............

What if the government or a Wealthy person needed to move a group of people to a camp but were unwilling to go, you now cant forcibly move them because they are ARMED, that means nobody is going to want to carry out the orders of the government or Wealthy person because they might die.

GUNZ are bad m-kay, we need to take gunz away, and let the government and Wealthy people do there jobs, and that is to control us.

If that were to happen, then no amount of guns you might have is going to do you one bit of good. At the very best, it might make your death a little more colorful.

 

[tjvh]

Yes, the nutjob down the street should have tactical nukes in his basement because "any weapon the government has, the people should have." You should be able to have weaponized anthrax and VX nerve gas because the government has it.

Bear arms means arms you can bear...as in your hands.



Which is what the government, and the people, had. Same as today. Whatever rifle, sidearm, or fireARM the military has, the people can also have. True there are regulatory and licensing requirements for some of those weapons, but the people can own the same firearms the military has.



And you know this how?

If you want to bring this discussion down to what weapons an infantry soldier carries should be available to ordinary citizens, that is more reasonable, yet still too much. The carnage that can be caused just by semi-automatic weapons is considerable, but at least it won't take out whole cities. Just scores of ordinary people. Coming soon to a theater or shopping mall near you.

Yet we know no gun control will stop the maniacs you're referring to. We see them in the US and even in other countries that have banned all guns.

So, if you wish to remain unarmed, cowering in the corner of a gun free zone when the maniac shows up, that's your choice. Please don't impose your cowardice on others.

Hmm, so as long as you can carry it, it's fine and dandy? Suitcase nukes OK then? Flamethrowers, RPG's, claymores, grenades, Stinger missiles? You want people to be able to carry that shit? You nutters should all move to Somalia where you can kill each other without interference.

And how do we know that sensible gun control won't work? It hasn't been tried here. While other countries may have an incident now and then, no country has these horrific incidents as often as we do. We seem to have them every other week.

And not cowardice. I'm a gun owner and I have served in the armed forces of the USA. It's called common sense. If people can't get their hands on these weapons, there will be fewer mass killings.

If people can't get their hands on these weapons, there will be fewer mass killings? What people? Criminals maybe. Sensible gun control? We have more gun Laws on the books than ever before... What the hell are you talking about? How do you explain record gun sales and the fact that violent crime has been decreasing when compared to the greater number of firearms out there? Here's one example: Gun violence in Virginia falls, firearms sales up - dailypress.com
I am also a gun owner and served in the Military. While we both swore to uphold the defense of our. and our fellow citizens Freedoms when we served, you have obviously chosen to disregard that oath with the tyrannical crap you have authored here. The idea that by restricting gun ownership it makes people safer has been proven time, and time again to have the exact opposite effect because criminals with uncontrolled firearms become empowered when law abiding citizens are disarmed. One need only look at Great Britain to see how their crime rate has skyrocketed after they implemented their own "sensible" gun laws.. If you are so emotionally frightened by scary inanimate objects in the hands of Law abiding citizens then you should sell your own guns before stating that others should not have the Right to have theirs... Hypocrite.

 

[tjvh]

I love how the liberal idiots want to make it sound like the people that want to preserve their second amendment Freedoms have this one desire to have Nukes, or Guided Missiles at their disposal... And the loony liberals want to try to say that people who support their second amendment Freedoms are the nuts... What a bunch of tree hugging kooks. Yeah Jake... Sure I want a Tank in my driveway, and a missile frigate in my bathtub you irrational moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

tjvh needs to be informed before he writes foolishly, as he does above. Liberty was arguing the citizens should have the right to own the same type of military weapons as the government with the same capabilities. No, Liberty does not need a frigate in his bathtub, and loony extremists, tjvh, need to read more closely.

 

[eflatminor]

Again, I don't know all the regulations, but I assure you I've seen privately owned tanks fire a live round. Maybe regulations prevent certain types of ammunition, I really don't know.

I wouldn't rely too heavily on those "Answer" forums. A quick look and I saw one of the posters stated "You can own an M-16 rifle, but only if it is incapable of firing in automatic or 3-round burst mode.". That's just not true. A private civilian CAN own an automatic weapon. There is much paperwork and fees involved, but it's absolutely possible. I know several people that legally own automatic weapons. Great fun to shoot...but oh so expensive.

Lastly, the point remains that all these regulations don't PREVENT anything. They burden the law abiding citizens, they tread on our inalienable rights, and they cost taxpayer money to enforce. The bad guys will always acquire the means to do bad things. That is really my only point.

All the best

Learn something every day. Here are some other posters in Answers who discuss this issue. They all seem to agree that federal permits and non-functional weapons unable to military rounds are part of the deal.

Notice the demilitarization required for private ownership for a former military weapons system.

Thanks, elfatminor.

Is it legal for civilians to own a tank? - Yahoo! Answers

Sure, he does! That he can fire a cap through a slagged barrel is not firing tank shells.

Why are you lying? Your bud is governed by certain federal and state laws that make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.

I'm sure there are regulations, but that doesn't mean his tanks can't fire a live round, because they can. At least some of the tanks he has can. I've seem them work. It's...wait for it...a blast!

More importantly, no regulation can "make sure that he cannot run around using a tank as a mililtary weapon.", it only makes it illegal to do so. Big difference! And really what is at the heart of the 'gun control' argument. No regulations or central control will stop anyone from doing crazy shit, only make it illegal to do so. We have PLENTY of laws that punish acts that harm others. Stop trying to prevent those acts by punishing law abiding people. It doesn't work!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am quite willing to burden the law-abiding citizen with all sort of regulations that inhibit him or her driving a Bradley fighting vehicle in my neighborhood.

No one needs a weapons platform that is used by the military except the military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Currently the courts have allowed all manner of restrictions, limitations, and requirements concerning owning firearms, save that of an outright ban. And all these rulings have been for the most part consistent and in agreement, to the point where it’s highly unlikely any gun related issue would reach the High Court for review.

The right of self-defense (and to own a firearm pursuant to that right) is not absolute, as is the case with all other rights; there are appropriate limitations and restrictions which may be placed on firearm ownership that are in accord with the Constitution.

In my opinion…

Gun registration, licensing (with the exception of concealed carry, of course), and permits all manifest an undue burden concerning ownership, as are waiting periods, training requirements, and limitations on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period.

The above can not be supported because the state can not demonstrate a compelling interest to enact such measures, and there is clearly no evidence in support of such limitations.

The state can, however, provide a compelling interest and provide documented evidence in support of background checks as well as keeping guns from convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill, and undocumented immigrants.

 

[eflatminor]

I am quite willing to burden the law-abiding citizen with all sort of regulations that inhibit him or her driving a Bradley fighting vehicle in my neighborhood.

No one needs a weapons platform that is used by the military except the military.

You just don't get it. All the regulations in the world will not stop, nor even inhibit, a BAD GUY from stealing a Bradley...or whatever...to do bad things. THAT'S the point!

What some one needs or doesn't need should not be your call. What someone DOES, if it harms you, is your business. Your meddling in the consensual activity between adults prevents nothing and costs us all dearly.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I'm pretty sure there's an argument going on in this thread over this. We probably have name calling and insults about manhood with all the silly names like "Pube", "Nazi", "Nazicon", "Pubecrap", "Maobamabite", "Dumbocrap" and the list goes on and on. Not to mention the over exaggeration going on about how the Second Amendment gives the right for me to own ICBM's with multiple nuclear warheads for example.

Now, I'm going to read this thread to see if I'm right.

EDIT: Damn I'm good, on the very first page someone used the exact over exaggeration in my example. I didn't think they would use that one but something along the lines of having a Cruise Missle in their back yard, lol.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a republic with freedom of speech, and I have every right to say that you do not have a need to own an operating heavy weapons platform in a neighborhood, or at all, for that matter. "You want" is not constitutional.

You have no inherent right to such a thing in the first place.

I am quite willing to burden the law-abiding citizen with all sort of regulations that inhibit him or her driving a Bradley fighting vehicle in my neighborhood.

No one needs a weapons platform that is used by the military except the military.

You just don't get it. All the regulations in the world will not stop, nor even inhibit, a BAD GUY from stealing a Bradley...or whatever...to do bad things. THAT'S the point!

What some one needs or doesn't need should not be your call. What someone DOES, if it harms you, is your business. Your meddling in the consensual activity between adults prevents nothing and costs us all dearly.

 

[eflatminor]

This is a republic with freedom of speech, and I have every right to say that you do not have a need to own an operating heavy weapons platform in a neighborhood, or at all, for that matter. "You want" is not constitutional.

You have no inherent right to such a thing in the first place.

I am quite willing to burden the law-abiding citizen with all sort of regulations that inhibit him or her driving a Bradley fighting vehicle in my neighborhood.

No one needs a weapons platform that is used by the military except the military.

You just don't get it. All the regulations in the world will not stop, nor even inhibit, a BAD GUY from stealing a Bradley...or whatever...to do bad things. THAT'S the point!

What some one needs or doesn't need should not be your call. What someone DOES, if it harms you, is your business. Your meddling in the consensual activity between adults prevents nothing and costs us all dearly.

Never tried to silence you...as good an idea as that might be.

Actually, we do have that right...but I know, who really cares about the Constitution and inalienable rights anyway? Clearly, central planners like yourself know what's best for all of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My speaking out is not "meddling", so when you complain about it, yes, you are trying to silence me.

You do not have an inalienable right to a military heavy weapons platform, at all, ever.

Do you understand that Big Business (including my medium interstate business) requires central planning and operations in the 21st century globabl economy?

Are you living in Gap Tooth, North Carolina?