I know many of you are gun guys/gals as well as knife nuts so I figure this is ok to talk about.

I was having a discussion with a buddy yesterday about gun rights and so forth. The question came up "To what degree should the right to keep and bear arms be applied?". By that, I mean, what type of weapon should actually be considered unacceptable? Should it be ok for a person to own a nuclear warhead, definately not IMO. Should be ok for a person to own a SAM battery, probably not. How about and RPG or hand grenades? I don't know.

I consider you all to probably be more educated on this topic than myself considering I don't even own a gun... yet.

What do you guys think?

I think the current laws are fine as far as ownership goes - in my state anyway.
California and so forth really need to lighten up if you ask me, but I don't get a say in that.

Now justice for misuse, needs to be swifter and more decisive. As in a fast track to a dirt nap.

For example:
If I wanted to detonate grenades out in the boonies somewhere (where property damage didn't apply either) I'd have to get a class III license, which is an ordeal, but can be done. Then it would be my business and those that didn't like it could pack sand for all I care.

However, if I where to use them in a criminal or reckless manner then I should be severely dealt with post haste.

Since the second amendment was designed like a immune system to tyranny by giving the people the means to overthrow the government by force if it should ever get out of hand any weapon needed for that job is reasonable. Since nukes are not necessary I would not allow them but artillery and anti aircraft guns seem reasonable as well as RPG's and some full auto weapons. Not just guns but strong encryption should be covered under the second amendment.

I would ban handguns though. You don't need them for an insurrection. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

First, anyone should correct me if I am wrong. To my understanding, anti-gun politicians are working on the new assault weapons ban. Something that they are trying to do is ban guns that look like assault rifles (such as currently legal versions of the AR15). I read that one politician was quoted as saying that gun companies are "sidestepping" the law by modifying guns to meet the current legal requirements. Would I call this "sidestepping?" Heck no! Complying, yes. A law banning guns because of the way they look is absurd. Sometimes I am afraid of the direction this country is going. Oh, concerning handguns, I don't think they should be banned. There are interesting statistics about how law abiding citizens with handguns have stopped criminals from killing more people. Also, in a survey of criminals, about 70% said if handguns were banned, they would use a sawed off shotgun. Doctors say that a person is twice as likely to die from a close range shotgun blast versus a handgun shot. As many know, the majority of crime related gun shot victims are shot at close range. So, as for me, I say handguns should not be banned. I whole heartedly agree with handgun registration though. Last of all, do criminals really care if the gun they use to commit a crime is legal? Probably not.

That is wonderful, a pefect example of someone willing to lead others down a slippery slope. Their is no reason for anyone to know how many or what type of firearms I own. I don't register a hammer, crosssbow or nail gun. Look at every other government that has had a registation policy. That has worked out well.

Individuals that agree to take little steps in the wrong direction are ruining the last great hope humanity has at liberty.

Unlike Canada the cat is out of the bag in the U.S. YOu need firearms to protect yourself. The cat is still not out of the bag here yet. Our odds here is you will meet someone with a knife or pipe and not a firearm.

If I was American I would be packin. NOt to say we dont have gun crime, we do but its a fraction per capita it is down your way. Fine by me.

Registration didnt work up here as the bad guys tended to not register their guns.:)

Hound

allcheck,
Perhaps I chose poor wording, but the main reason I would agree to register a handgun is that I don't see how it would cause a problem for me. Registering handguns also seems like a compromise between us who want to own guns, and those who despise guns. I could just be ignorant of what registering a handgun entails. What kinds of problems has registration caused in other countries? I would really like to know what arguments there are against handgun registration, not because I am totally pro gun registration, but because I am open to here how registering a gun is a bad thing. With more knowledge I may change my view.

As a side note, if you are going to tell me that I am "someone willing to lead others down a slippery slope," and "ruining the last great hope humanity has at liberty," it would be nice of you to explain how I am doing that. I really have no intention of the above mentioned and like to know the facts for criticism of such. I seriously would like to know what is so bad about gun registration.

added:
I just read the above post and believe that if registering guns didn't change crimes in Canada, it would not here in the U.S. However, I still don't see how registering a gun is a bad thing for a law abiding citizen such as myself. If there is a problem with registering a gun, I really want to know what it is, since I plan on purchasing guns in the future (handguns included).

You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you can't choose what someone will attack you with. The general rule is that an attacker within 21ft. armed with a knife is considered a lethal threat. A motivated/well trained attacker can still connect with a lethal blow from this distance, unless hit in the central nervous system.

This is all beside the point though. The purpose of the second amendment, here in the US, is to defend liberty and to give the general population a method to overcome any government that tries to take away those liberties. 2A is not a privilege to be controlled, but an inalienable right. nothing more needs to be said than that.

I don't mean to be harsh to any other posters, but it is time for everyone to wise up and do something about the nanny state before we reach a point of no return. I wonder what most of the Democratic candidates would think about the knives discussed everyday on this forum. I bet they look evil and deadly. Be sure to go out and vote this year, but if you do, think long and hard about what is important.

added

We must have been posting at the same time.

Nearly every gun ban has started with a simple registration policy. Once the gun grabbers know who has certain firearms, they are easier to take away. Except for the firearms in illegal hands... Canada had a lot of firearms "lost" right before their registration deadline - which lead to a confiscation of certain firearms.

As far as leading people down a slippery slope:
A person should not risk any of their rights to compromise. Eventually you will find yourself offering more of you rights in trade or risking your life when too many are taken away. You can't compromise with a right, if you do, is it really a right?

What kind of compromises are you willing to make with your knives for the sheeple?

I understand that it is our right to own guns and I fully support that. I do not understand how registering a handgun changes whether or not I can own one. Maybe I have heard too much liberal argument for this, but it seems to me that by registering a handgun, it would be easier for law enforcement to trace the crime to the gun used. Since I would not commit such crimes, I don't see how registering a handgun is a problem for me. I want to make sure that you (allcheck) know that I am not asking these questions to argue, but I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. I am pro gun ownership and want to make sure that our 2nd amendment rights are protected.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but 2A is the only reason we have any liberty and may retain any liberties in the future. I just request that in the future you educate yourself before you are willing to compromise. Your uneducated compromise could lead to that "slippery slope."

If you plan on owning a firearm, please take the time to understand the 2nd ammendment. To completely understand the ammendment you will have to dig a little deeper. You will have to read what the founders of our country thaought of the scope and purpose of the ammendment.

Once again, I don't mean to single you out, but please educate yourself before you are willing to compromise my rights.

Ok. I just read this because of our simultaneous posting.


I see your point now. If gun registration really is the start of a ban, then count me out. Like I said earlier, I must have too much faith in our government to think that things will stop at gun registration. If I knew that gun registration would absolutely not lead to a ban, I would not have a problem with it. If gun registration leads to a ban, there's a problem.

As a side note, I was reading on some pro gun ownership websites about a month ago, and reasons anti gun politicians think citizens should own guns came up. Anti gun politicians think guns only should be for sporting purposes (ie. hunting and target shooting). On the particular website I was on the pro gun folks brought up self defense. Why do anti gun politicians think self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a gun? To me, that seems like a very important reason to own one.
Anyway, enough for me tonight. It's getting late. Thanks for the responses though!

Personally, I believe that firearms should be restricted from the following persons: Those who have serious psychological issues requiring serious care, e.g. required being comitted, and violent felons. Beyond that there shouldn't be a line.

Personally, I don't have a problem giving back 2A rights to non-violent felons who've paid their debt, and proven that they can be productive and contributing citizens. If you've paid your debt, then it's paid. And this is comming from a guy who works in a prison.

Personally, I think CCW should be nation wide and shall issue even in New York City and Chicago! However, I do think that the requirements/training should be a little tougher that they are in some places. My wife just took her course here in Florida and I think the class could have been stronger than it was.