What resrictions should be placed on the right to bear arms?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by proletarian, Dec 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Should a weapon be treated differently if I remove the stock than if I have a fixed or collapsible stock installed? What difference does it make?

    Should fully-automatic weapons be restricted when it comes to the general public? Should semi-automatic weapons also be restricted based upon the potential firing rate?

    Should ammunition be restricted based on size, penetrating power, or other factors?

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&feature=related[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZfNOlAvXg[/ame]
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Fully Automatic weapons should be licensed as they are now. The rest should not effect the ability to own or possess any weapon.

    Sawed off shotguns should be legal as well. The Supreme Court actually disagreed with itself when they upheld the restriction on Sawed off shotguns. IN 1939 White Vs Texas ( I believe that is the name) they ruled that the restriction on sawed off Shotguns was an acceptable restriction and cited as their reasoning the fact that a weapon must be usable or have been used by the military, or have a function that the military would find useful.

    In WW1 sawed off shot guns had a use and a function. And were used by the military.

    We now have 2 Court decisions to aid in determining what is and is not acceptable on limiting the 2nd Amendment. the 39 decision says that a weapon must be of some value or have been of some value to the military to be protected by the 2nd Amendment ( which by the way means the assault weapon ban was unconstitutional) and the latest ruling which states that the 2nd Amendment IS a personal individual protected right.
     
  3. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,062
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,121
    No sleeveless shirts.
     
  4. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    I used to think that some restrictions were not a bad idea. But having been in the business some time I see that most restrictions are ineffective and they engender a huge bureaucracy to administer them. Said bureaucracy has tendencies to power grabs and putting innocent people in jail. The downside is not worht the upside.
    The only restriction ought to be on felons, the insane, and minors possessing guns.
     
  5. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,246
    Thanks Received:
    2,078
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,285
    I do not agree on weapon control for any of the reasons in the OP. I think you should be able to own almost any weapon. I do agree with some restrictions based on destructive power. For example, I do not believe that anyone should own an RPG. I know that a ban like that is somewhat constraining on the original intent of the second amendment but I believe that it is a reasonable restriction.
    +1 These are also good restrictions.
     
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Many states have no restrictions on insane people posessing guns.

    How do you think the NRA exists?
     
  7. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    No personal nukes without training course.
     
  8. slackjawed
    Offline

    slackjawed Self deported

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,307
    Thanks Received:
    645
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    15th congressional district of Arizona
    Ratings:
    +645
    The only restrictions ought to be the ones lined out in the US Constitution.
    Convicted felons ought to be restricted in owning firearms.
    If I want to own a RPG and can afford it, I should be able to buy a few to clear out the brush on the ranch if I so choose.
     
  9. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285

    Where is that in the constitution?
     
  10. slackjawed
    Offline

    slackjawed Self deported

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,307
    Thanks Received:
    645
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    15th congressional district of Arizona
    Ratings:
    +645
    It's not, its a federal law, (18 U.S.C. 922(g)) that's why I added it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page