To address the original question.

I remember being challenged by some gun control freak. He basically said that it (2A) had to apply to militia (national guard), otherwise anyone could own a tank or nukes. To answer I went through the federalist papers or something similar that addressed the interpretation of 2A as it was intended by our forefathers.

"Arms" by the definition of the day was defined as anything that could literally be carried in your arms. Large explosive weapons and weapons platforms were defined as "ordinance" and not included in the 2A.

I wish I could remember the source I had on that. If I find it I'll post it for you.

Here is a website that I often sourced when I engaged in gun control discussions. I think it's a great site that backs itself up pretty nicely. I think the general members of this forum will find it interesting. If it is against the rules to post links, just let me know and I'll delete the link. I

http://www.guncite.com/

Gets my vote for link of the week. I need to grab some snacks and drinks and camp this site for a bit.

Gun control should mean hitting your target and not shooting through a wall into a civilian- otherwise you'll end up like here in Britain. No guns at all in private hands and no knives in public (unless of course, you are a criminal)

However, stopping those with mental health problems accessing weapons should be an ideal. -BUT- if someone who disagrees with 'The State' is considered in Fascist regimes to have mental health problems then there goes the armoury for your insurrection..

(Then again you guys did manage to give a shaved chimp the presidency twice! So it's all moot..) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The second amendment isn't about hunting or even about protecting your family and personal property (although I believe that the founding fathers would be amazed that there are places in the US where free people are constrained from doing either). It's about preserving people's freedom to throw off the shackles of an oppressive government. As such, people should be able to own current technology military-grade small arms. I also believe that they should be able to own handguns, although I think most soldiers would agree that you're better off carrying extra mags for your primary than the weight of a pistol and it's ammo.

For practical reasons, it's probably better if individuals don't have access to anti-armor/anti-aircraft missiles or to WMDs (I don't think the guy down the street should stockpile nerve gas canisters in his garage). I also think that local communities should be able to regulate what somebody may carry within an incorporated city, but not to restrict firearm ownership nor the transport of otherwise legal firearms within a secure case. Ammunition comparable to standard military small arms ammunition should not be restricted, although I believe exploding projectiles and those specifically designed as armor-piercing (not merely capable because they're more powerful than a .22LR) should be at least restricted, probably prohibited.

I don't believe that the government should have the power to easily take away the right of any free citizen to own a firearm (or to vote for that matter). If somebody is too unstable or dangerous to own a firearm, then they shouldn't be walking the streets. However, if the state cannot justify restricting an individual's other freedoms (such as freedom of speech), then why should it be allowed to violate their second amendment rights? It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges [that the state can take away on a whim].

what a thread. isn't it crazy how we can agree, yet one or two twists in the details make us opponents?

anyway, having been a philosophy major headed for law school, i found that the law (legal rights, particularly) is the hostile fault line between logic and practicality. ditched law for business, which is even worse (manipulative cutthroat fiction).

the militia, and gun rights, exist to protect the people from the government. some people need to review their history if they don't think we need either.

"obsolete"...morons. the very fact that they have this difference of opinion with the law should be evidence that conflict between the people and the government is plausible.

the line: we should, ideally, be a match for the government. not too likely. i wonder how many soldiers and police would defect and defend their homes and families rather than stick with their orders.

gun laws affect NO ONE except ordinary law abiding citizens
if guns are banned altogether it will create a new form of crime(just like prohibition) and criminals will still be able to get their guns
countries like australia have had INCREASES in crime rates and murder since they enacted strong antigun laws
I think that you should be able to own any gun(except canon, anti tank etc.) and instead of having laws that regulate gun ownership have buyers take a psycological exam every 3-5 years

The question I originally had had was really, what type of weapon do you consider to be in excess of what the 2nd Amendment stipulates. Do you think civilians should be able to own anything that is carried by an individual military soldier? I tend to think so. I'd rather not have to rise up against the government with a 12 gauge or .22LR when they all sport high velocity AP rounds being shot at a high rate of fire.

Why are fully automatic weapons illegal (I understand there are certain grandfather laws etc)? I don't claim to know guns very well, but I was under the impression that semi-sutos can be converted to automatic rather easily. Doesn't this just put full autos in the hands of criminals?

I was reading on http://www.guncite.com/ today and under the assault weapons link there is an article that says many of todays semi-auto "assault" rifles, such as the AR-15, are not very easily converted to full auto. Here's the quote:

"Assault Weapons Easily Converted to Full-auto?

Not according to LAPD Detective Jimmy Trahin, testifying before the California State Assembly (Feb. 13,1989):

These military style assault weapons of today are not easily and readily convertible without extensive knowledge and modifications to the weapon and/or substitution of available parts."

After reading some posts here, I agree with Kwantum that "civilians should be able to own anything that is carried by an individual military soldier." If the 2nd amendment exists in order to allow the citizens of this nation to be able to defend themselves from a threatening national government, then I sure as heck would not want to have to defend myself with some bolt action rifle or a shotgun. We as citizens would never stand a chance if that were the case.

Well....gun control has only one purpose which is long turm removal of guns from the hands of the law abiding.


Having said that there does have to be a line. We can't have people walking around with RPG's altho they might be fun at the local dump <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Hand guns and rifles need less regulation in fact the only regulation you need is the background check and it's a go no go thing. You don't need to record the type of gun serial number etc.. because that information will only be missused in the long run.

CCWs need to be like driver licences and accepted in every state every park, and every buildings with few exceptions those being Court buildings, incarceration facilities etc..

what would you want to be armed with when the fecal matter hits the oscillating ceiling appliance? i think some improvised explosives would be nice. throw some sneakers at em.

or, you can do what rambo did twice, and go to them when they're not looking with your bow. it worked in the movies!

As I understand it, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was reactionary legislation to address Depression Era bandit and organized crime activity. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a enacted due to fears over civil rights and increasingly violent anti-war unrest in the wake the JFK assassination. As is often the case, knee-jerk legislation makes for bad laws.