Where should the line be drawn in banning weapons?

Carry over from the discussion on the 2nd Amendment. Where can and should the line be drawn in regards to the personal or corporate ownership of weapons?

I voted heavily armored vehicular weapons for a ban, but I'd include good regulation on the procurement of fully automatic weapons and hand-fired explosive devices. They are things that should be allowed and maintained by militias but carefully controlled for private sale.

Personally I think that if the government isn't comfortable with its lawful, mentally stable citizens having access to a given weapon, the government likewise shouldn't have access to it.



I know that's a pretty wild position, but for me it's more a commentary on what the government shouldn't be doing rather than what the citizens shouldn't be doing. There should be escalating restrictions as we move to more and more destructive means, but the onus should be on the government to prove it has a specific reason that this specific individual should be denied their 2nd Amendment right.



I'd draw the line at long range missles (which I interpret as ICBMs).

A chicken in every pot and a hand gun in every hand.

I drew the line starting at: Grenades/weaponized explosives. I would also include in banning from the average citizen 1. Hand held explosive launching devices. 2. Heavy armored vehicular weapons platforms. 3. Short range missiles. 4. Long range missiles.

5. Biological weapons. 6. Small nuclear weapons. 7. Large nuclear weapons.



But, the focus must be on the Constitution and using it for it's intended purpose - to limit the power and reach of the federal govt. Govt. must be limited. Sadly, it's growing like a disease.

scott715 wrote:
A chicken in every pot and a hand gun in every hand.

:lol:

I'm in a whole different universe from you guys. Maybe some of this depends upon who we fear more--the stranger or the government?

snoscythe wrote:
Personally I think that if the government isn't comfortable with its lawful, mentally stable citizens having access to a given weapon, the government likewise shouldn't have access to it.



I know that's a pretty wild position, but for me it's more a commentary on what the government shouldn't be doing rather than what the citizens shouldn't be doing. There should be escalating restrictions as we move to more and more destructive means, but the onus should be on the government to prove it has a specific reason that this specific individual should be denied their 2nd Amendment right.



I'd draw the line at long range missles (which I interpret as ICBMs).

That is what I'm saying. So along with you I'll try to put it another way. If I trust the government I don't care what kind of weapon they have to defend my family, friends, me the border and all that is ours. If I don't trust the government I don't want them to have a pocket knife. Likewise if a citizen is someone I trust, I don't care if they have one of brother Browning's .50s or any other weapon. If they are someone I don't trust, D. F'stien can have at em.



I would add that if someone is trustworthy and has B B's .50, he and or his organization better be able to keep it from the untrustworthies from where ever they might come.



I went to a very good home evening tonight. It was almost as much fun as this discussion.

I drew the line at fully auto. Having shot both, fully auto is totally unnecessary and a waste of Ammo unless you are trying to supress fire--keep heads down. Semi-auto is much more accurate and conserves ammo to a population that surely will not have as much as the Government. The mantra in the military is one shot, one kill. That doesn't happen in fully auto mode--mostly it is some innaccurate shooting that wastes a lot of ammunition. If the populace had unfettered rights to semi-auto assault rifles, the Goverment would have to think more than twice about forming a true tyrannical government. Though there is a One Million Man Army, there are, I believe, somewhere around 100 Million armed Americans. I like those odds, especially considering that the military folks who swore to protect the Constitution would not all turn against the people--unless there were a cleansing of the military first. That would be a truly disturbing trend to keep an eye on. So for me, semi auto assault rifles in the hands of many is enough to keep the Government at bay. Any warfare would be guerilla in nature. It would be house to house and street to street. A semi auto in the hands of someone who knows how to use it does the trick.



I do not mean to imply that I want retrictions further than we have now. Though you can get a very expensive license for a fully auto, my vote was meant to keep semi-auto relatively unregulated (felons and socio-paths need not apply) and fully auto out of the hands of most. But I could be persuaded to go up one and draw the line after fully auto. I just think it is unnecessary for the purpose of keeping the Government in check. A have a real problem with the public having grenades. They are far more dangerous than TV shows portray. If you have ever thrown one, you know that they shake the whole earth around you, send shrapnel flying in every direction, and have an unnerving volume. I don't want those in the hand of the average Joe who watches a John Wayne movie and thinks he can safely throw it 25 feet away from a group of people. At least rifles can be aimed in only one direction at a time.

What is interesting is what the government can and should have access to. I fully support the military having anything they need, but only with the law in place that the military cannot be used on US soil against American citizens. So I think I have come up with a good compromise -- No government agency that operates domestically should have access to any weapon that law abiding citizens cannot have. Police, FBI, homeland, whatever have no legitimate right to weapons Americans can't also use to defend themselves.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
I drew the line at fully auto. Having shot both, fully auto is totally unnecessary and a waste of Ammo unless you are trying to supress fire--keep heads down. Semi-auto is much more accurate and conserves ammo to a population that surely will not have as much as the Government. The mantra in the military is one shot, one kill. That doesn't happen in fully auto mode--mostly it is some innaccurate shooting that wastes a lot of ammunition. If the populace had unfettered rights to semi-auto assault rifles, the Goverment would have to think more than twice about forming a true tyrannical government. Though there is a One Million Man Army, there are, I believe, somewhere around 100 Million armed Americans. I like those odds, especially considering that the military folks who swore to protect the Constitution would not all turn against the people--unless there were a cleansing of the military first. That would be a truly disturbing trend to keep an eye on. So for me, semi auto assault rifles in the hands of many is enough to keep the Government at bay. Any warfare would be guerilla in nature. It would be house to house and street to street. A semi auto in the hands of someone who knows how to use it does the trick.



I do not mean to imply that I want retrictions further than we have now. Though you can get a very expensive license for a fully auto, my vote was meant to keep semi-auto relatively unregulated (felons and socio-paths need not apply) and fully auto out of the hands of most. But I could be persuaded to go up one and draw the line after fully auto. I just think it is unnecessary for the purpose of keeping the Government in check. A have a real problem with the public having grenades. They are far more dangerous than TV shows portray. If you have ever thrown one, you know that they shake the whole earth around you, send shrapnel flying in every direction, and have an unnerving volume. I don't want those in the hand of the average Joe who watches a John Wayne movie and thinks he can safely throw it 25 feet away from a group of people. At least rifles can be aimed in only one direction at a time.

Why hasn't anyone brought this up yet? You're not Swiss are you?

hawkwing wrote:
What is interesting is what the government can and should have access to. I fully support the military having anything they need, but only with the law in place that the military cannot be used on US soil against American citizens. So I think I have come up with a good compromise -- No government agency that operates domestically should have access to any weapon that law abiding citizens cannot have. Police, FBI, homeland, whatever have no legitimate right to weapons Americans can't also use to defend themselves.

I really like that compromise. But what happens in case of invasion or homeland attack?

BoiseBYU wrote:
I'm in a whole different universe from you guys. Maybe some of this depends upon who we fear more--the stranger or the government?

One problem with this poll is it's drawing the line for banning, no discussion of regulation. My line might be a lot closer to your when it comes to effective regulations, because I still don't want my crazy neighbor to have fully automatic weapons. But I don't mind if well-trained people with stable backgrounds have a legal pathway to get something a bit more powerful.

If you add the option of any weapon that causes collateral damage I would pick it.



There are effective biological and chemical weapons that only injure a single person (presumably the bad guy) and won't hurt others. I am OK with people owning those. Also, missiles are just delivery devices. If you need one to send your satellite to space you should be able to own it as a private citizen. Most of the other things you put in those categories can be used discriminately with the exception of nuclear devices which will always harm innocent bystanders (though if they could be developed to destroy in a precise manner I would be OK with those as well - but the technology is a long way off).

Sammich wrote:

I'm in a whole different universe from you guys. Maybe some of this depends upon who we fear more--the stranger or the government?

One problem with this poll is it's drawing the line for banning, no discussion of regulation. My line might be a lot closer to your when it comes to effective regulations, because I still don't want my crazy neighbor to have fully automatic weapons. But I don't mind if well-trained people with stable backgrounds have a legal pathway to get something a bit more powerful.

True. I agree with Sammich, regulation and licensing needs to be addressed. The elephant in the room is fully auto rifles. There are states now that allow people folk to get a class 3 license and own fully auto weapons. The process must be working. When was the last time you heard about a mass shooting with a fully auto gun? I can't remember of it happening. It looks like the licensing process and and the fact that they screen these folks carefully, and finally, they are responsible & sane people, there have been no problems with citizens owning fully auto guns.



The problem I have is the idea that either gang bangers, criminals, or crazy people will get their hands on a fully auto weapon. The only comfort that I have is that it has not happened yet, so the regulatory process must be working.



Dat's all I got to say about that.

hawkwing wrote:
What is interesting is what the government can and should have access to. I fully support the military having anything they need, but only with the law in place that the military cannot be used on US soil against American citizens. So I think I have come up with a good compromise -- No government agency that operates domestically should have access to any weapon that law abiding citizens cannot have. Police, FBI, homeland, whatever have no legitimate right to weapons Americans can't also use to defend themselves.

Actually, I think that is a very good compromise. Like I said, the time to be worried is when the military starts getting purged of those who take an oath to defend the Constitution in favor of those who swear loyalty (either overtly or covertly) to something else--if you want to read about it, I believe there is a section in some old book. I think the phrase King-men is used... ;)



I should add, that the State of Alabama where I live is putting forth a bill in the State legislature to ban the use of UAVs for intelligence gathering or anything else. We here in Alabalama don't want no Big Bruda lookin' in on our bidness.

Sammich wrote:

I'm in a whole different universe from you guys. Maybe some of this depends upon who we fear more--the stranger or the government?

One problem with this poll is it's drawing the line for banning, no discussion of regulation. My line might be a lot closer to your when it comes to effective regulations, because I still don't want my crazy neighbor to have fully automatic weapons. But I don't mind if well-trained people with stable backgrounds have a legal pathway to get something a bit more powerful.

This is why the current discussions in Congress surrounding gun control are stupid, wrong and misguided. Guns are NOT the problem. It's crazy people and criminals using them.



Well-trained people with stable backgrounds don't go around killing people simply because they have a gun.



We need to address locking up criminals for much longer periods of time if they use guns in crimes they commit and for which they are caught. We need to find ways to remove people from society who pose threats to themselves and the rest of us - regardless of what kinds of weapons they can access.



Let's stop worrying about the tools crazies and crimials are using and start getting the crazies and criminals out of society.

+1. Exactly. Your are spot on. This is why Feinstein's gun ban effort is misguided.



For instance - you can take 2 guns, both are the .223 caliber. One has a black plastic stock, is semi-auto, an 11 round magazine, and certain cosmetic design features. Because of the 11 round magazine and cosmetic features - it is illegal (under Feinstein's proposed bill).



We take another gun - .223 caliber, it has a black plastic stock, is semi-auto, lacks the cosmetic features that Feinstein finds offensive, and has a 10 round magazine. This weapon is perfectly legal according to Feinstein.



Can both of those guns fire at the same rate? Yes. As fast as you can pull the trigger. Do both of those guns have the exact same firepower? Yes. They both shoot the .223 bullet. The only difference is cosmetics, and the legal gun caries 1 less bullet - voila! It's legal.



The effort to make American cities safer I applaud. The reality is, making American cities safer has been my life's work for over 20 years. So I really do support that effort. But I have found that we must be effective and put our energies into items that actually work. Not spin our wheels on superficial items that make us feel good, but have little to no effect.



The debate rages on.

Sammich wrote:

What is interesting is what the government can and should have access to. I fully support the military having anything they need, but only with the law in place that the military cannot be used on US soil against American citizens. So I think I have come up with a good compromise -- No government agency that operates domestically should have access to any weapon that law abiding citizens cannot have. Police, FBI, homeland, whatever have no legitimate right to weapons Americans can't also use to defend themselves.

I really like that compromise. But what happens in case of invasion or homeland attack?

In that case the military would be called up to defend against foreign invaders, not American citizens, which would be acceptable under my compromise.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

What is interesting is what the government can and should have access to. I fully support the military having anything they need, but only with the law in place that the military cannot be used on US soil against American citizens. So I think I have come up with a good compromise -- No government agency that operates domestically should have access to any weapon that law abiding citizens cannot have. Police, FBI, homeland, whatever have no legitimate right to weapons Americans can't also use to defend themselves.

Actually, I think that is a very good compromise. Like I said, the time to be worried is when the military starts getting purged of those who take an oath to defend the Constitution in favor of those who swear loyalty (either overtly or covertly) to something else--if you want to read about it, I believe there is a section in some old book. I think the phrase King-men is used... ;)



I should add, that the State of Alabama where I live is putting forth a bill in the State legislature to ban the use of UAVs for intelligence gathering or anything else. We here in Alabalama don't want no Big Bruda lookin' in on our bidness.

I've thought about this as well, the purge probably will happen, or the oath will be changed subtly over the years to be allegiance to a ruler and not the constitution. Of course if that happens, we'll have thousands of disgruntled former soldiers and descendants of long time military service who would join the cause of liberty.