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

[☭proletarian☭]

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]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

No sleeveless shirts.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The only restriction ought to be on felons, the insane, and minors possessing guns.

+1 These are also good restrictions.

 

[uscitizen]

Many states have no restrictions on insane people posessing guns.

How do you think the NRA exists?

 

[HUGGY]

No personal nukes without training course.

 

[slackjawed]

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.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Where is that in the constitution?

 

[slackjawed]

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.

Where is that in the constitution?

It's not, its a federal law, (18 U.S.C. 922(g)) that's why I added it.

 

[Contumacious]

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

By the government NONE.

 

[Yukon]

What about nuclear weapons....should they be legal?

 

[Big Fitz]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

 

[uscitizen]

But Claymores are so much fun on haloween.

 

[slackjawed]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

RPG's are arms, I say no restrictions.
I should be held accountable if I decide to clear the brush with a flamethrower and damage the neighbor's property, just like if I ran into your mailbox with my pickup.

 

[uscitizen]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

RPG's are arms, I say no restrictions.
I should be held accountable if I decide to clear the brush with a flamethrower and damage the neighbor's property, just like if I ran into your mailbox with my pickup.

But the mailbox is a federal offense, the rest is just civil.

 

[Big Fitz]

But Claymores are so much fun on haloween.

I know I know... My motto is "There is no problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of high explosives."

So many just don't get the "proper application" part and freak out. LOL

Buncha Nervous Nellys.

 

[slackjawed]

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

RPG's are arms, I say no restrictions.
I should be held accountable if I decide to clear the brush with a flamethrower and damage the neighbor's property, just like if I ran into your mailbox with my pickup.

But the mailbox is a federal offense, the rest is just civil.

Dammit, I missed my chance when that kid hit my mailbox to have him charged for a federal crime. I just agreed with him when he offered to fix it back the way it was.

 

[Contumacious]

If I want to own a RPG and can afford it,

An RPG is not a 'long arm' or firearm. It is a heavy weapon which launches an explosive charge. Therefore, I'm all fine with regulating the purchase and ownership of heavy weapons and artillery.

I, for one do not want my neighbor deciding to play around in his back ground with his flame thrower filled with napalm or Mark 19 fully automatic pintle mounted grenade launcher. I'm just odd that way.

BUT to be constitutional, they'd only be allowed to be regulated at the State level. The feds can't.

So, it was fine for Hitler to posses heavy weapons and artillery but not the Juden?



"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

Is Obama an angel?

.

 

[JD_2B]

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?

It doesn't make any difference, whatsoever. Having a weapon does not make someone dangerous. It only makes them well armed, and better prepared for battle, should they be faced with any number of life's potentially tragic, fatal attacks.

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?

Hell no to both. I say that if the government has the power to own something, and use it, then so should the people, including the ownership and threat of using WMDs. Anything less is tyrannic.

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

No way. Fuck that "saturday night special" ban. Just because something can penetrate a bullet proof vest does not make the weapons that CANT do the same, any less lethal in potential usage. A person can be shot in an area that is not center mass, and still die, so I think that the logic behind banning certain guns or types of ammo is an epic fail here.