PDA

View Full Version : Gun laws poll


FourTenJaeger
02-03-2011, 12:35 PM
Just taking a general tally of the Calguns members attitude of our current laws

FourTenJaeger
02-03-2011, 1:22 PM
BUMP

Caladain
02-03-2011, 1:24 PM
I draw the line at strategic weapons.

NCB. Nuke, Chem, Bio. Go ahead and restrict those, have fun, etc.

Other than that......
:43:

stix213
02-03-2011, 2:53 PM
I think it covers all firearms that a single individual can carry, including machine guns.

But I don't believe it includes RPGs, stinger missiles, etc.

My answer isn't in the poll choices.

maddoggie13
02-03-2011, 2:56 PM
If I have the money for a M1 Tank, I should be able to buy one.

Exile Machine
02-03-2011, 3:17 PM
I"ve been saving up for an F-16 fighter jet since about 1976.
-Mark

Dreaded Claymore
02-03-2011, 6:39 PM
I can handle not having full auto, but what's wrong with drum magazines? Beta-C mags are cool.

GreasyOldGranny
02-03-2011, 6:54 PM
For your average every day walking around knuckle head like me..... fast as you can pull the trigger sounds fair to me. 15 round mags would be super...fast as you can load em sounds fair to me.

Law enforcement and Military should have some advantage regarding firepower and capicity as to not be out gunned by the local yocal.

JMO

Don29palms
02-03-2011, 6:57 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I don't see anything in there about restrictions, reasonable or not, as restrictions are infringements.

C.W.M.V.
02-03-2011, 7:01 PM
There's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a reproduction FW190 and have working MG151/20's in the wings.
Seriously how freaking cool would that be!

dustoff31
02-03-2011, 7:08 PM
There's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a reproduction FW190 and have working MG151/20's in the wings.
Seriously how freaking cool would that be!

That would be way cool!

I heard a story some time ago about a guy/some guys who had a flyable B-17and some .50 cals. Supposedly, they would fly to TX, mount the guns and then fly out into the gulf into Int'l water and blast away. Don't know if it's true, but it's a cool story.


Back on topic: I'm fine with AZ gun laws. CA, not so much. In fact, not at all.

TempleKnight
02-03-2011, 8:01 PM
That would be way cool!

I heard a story some time ago about a guy/some guys who had a flyable B-17and some .50 cals. Supposedly, they would fly to TX, mount the guns and then fly out into the gulf into Int'l water and blast away. Don't know if it's true, but it's a cool story.


Back on topic: I'm fine with AZ gun laws. CA, not so much. In fact, not at all.

Here's your link to the Confedarate Air Force http://www.cafb29b24.org/

I vote for AZ gun laws, too

Trigger Guard
02-03-2011, 8:40 PM
I have a 1900 Sears catalog that has British Southern(s) 20mm for sale at an unbeatable price of $174.00. So, tell me again why I can't have one of these? And tell me also, why did Klinton de-mill 750.000 USGI M14's? Oh, I forgot, we should never have a need for anything like that!

Cali-Shooter
02-03-2011, 8:51 PM
Gun "control" laws, is there any that are worth keeping? Looking at the examples of Hawaii, NJ, NY, CA, UK, and Australia tells me a Big, Fat, NO. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Aleksandr Mravinsky
02-03-2011, 8:57 PM
I'm somewhere between the top two. I'm of the mind that, as the 2A was created for defence, it covers all weapons that can be used for defensive purposes. That means that a machine gun would be covered since it can be used for solely defensive purposes (without much or any collateral). An RPG, on the other hand, is far too destructive for purely defensive uses and is used primarily for offensive purposes, so it would be less covered.

meinbruder
02-03-2011, 8:57 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I don't see anything in there about restrictions, reasonable or not, as restrictions are infringements.

D@** Right. What he said.

AndrewMendez
02-03-2011, 9:19 PM
For your average every day walking around knuckle head like me..... fast as you can pull the trigger sounds fair to me. 15 round mags would be super...fast as you can load em sounds fair to me.

Law enforcement and Military should have some advantage regarding firepower and capicity as to not be out gunned by the local yocal.

JMO

The entire reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to overthrow the the Government. Why give PD or Military the upper hand?

mkasda
02-03-2011, 10:25 PM
I really don't see how people can legally come up with restrictions on firearms that limit their possession or use to hunting or self defense purposes. It must be ignorance or wishful thinking. The founders of our great country overthrew the ruling government and its’ military, they wanted a check on the power of the government, not have all rights and powers be granted by government. Now don't get me wrong, no private person should have weapons of mass destruction, but the Revolutionary War did start with the British trying to seize canons from Concord, i.e. field artillery.

mossy
02-03-2011, 11:00 PM
as of now it looks like there are 12 closet anti's that have voted :mad: what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED dont they understand?

bob7122
02-03-2011, 11:14 PM
i would vote on the poll but my answer is not on there i believe we should have machine guns but not rpg's or grenades. i wouldn't mind suppressors either.smoke grenades and flashbangs would be coolbeans in my book.

Archie B.
02-04-2011, 6:04 AM
Shall Not Be Infringed... :D

cineski
02-04-2011, 6:05 AM
Considering the 2a was originally meant to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, I'll take an F-22 please.

scarville
02-04-2011, 6:36 AM
An RPG, on the other hand, is far too destructive for purely defensive uses and is used primarily for offensive purposes, so it would be less covered.
Good luck stopping mobile armor with your "high capacity" poodle shooters.

If there are to be any "reasonable" restrictions then they should always favor the citiizen. If the criminals wear body armor then the citizen can carry AP rounds. If the government has tanks then citizen militas can own RPG's.

The only "restrictions" I remotely support are those directly related to the misuse of weaponry.

Don29palms
02-04-2011, 6:48 AM
Here's something to think about for the people that don't think you should have RPGs and grenades and such. If a person is a law abiding citizen then why shouldn't they be able to own whatever it takes to defend their family from evil? Is just there mere posession of something enough to transform someone into a criminal? That's what your oppressive government believes.

zhyla
02-04-2011, 9:37 AM
Here's something to think about for the people that don't think you should have RPGs and grenades and such. If a person is a law abiding citizen then why shouldn't they be able to own whatever it takes to defend their family from evil? Is just there mere posession of something enough to transform someone into a criminal? That's what your oppressive government believes.

I'm more afraid of the people who think they "need" RPG's to "defend" their families.

I'm sure that regulation has little effect on bad guys getting destructive devices but I'm not sure I would favor decriminalizing anything explosive. The "it's too easy for a nutjob with X to kill N people" argument gets more and more compelling the bigger N gets.

On the other hand, effecting a rebellion (if it were someday necessary) is difficult without explosives these days.

johnny_22
02-04-2011, 9:53 AM
RPGs are inaccurate. Not sure they should be included. But, I think they are not crew weapons, so they would qualify for individual ownership.

Veggie
02-04-2011, 10:53 AM
From a 1in knife to a nuclear bomb.

scarville
02-04-2011, 11:24 AM
I'm sure that regulation has little effect on bad guys getting destructive devices but I'm not sure I would favor decriminalizing anything explosive. The "it's too easy for a nutjob with X to kill N people" argument gets more and more compelling the bigger N gets
That's just arguing over where to draw the line of infringement. The Brady bunch will argue it should be drawn at N=1. Far and away most prolific killers of the 20th Century were all nation states. If your looking at restricting X to save N then there is a good place to start.
From a 1in knife to a nuclear bomb.
I imagine that the ATF/FBI would have been a lot more polite back in 1993 if the Davidians had had a couple of kilotons in their collective pocket.

robcoe
02-04-2011, 11:27 AM
Is this for federal or state laws?

Federal I dont have any major problems with ATM, California laws on the other hand...

ocspeedracer
02-04-2011, 11:35 AM
Abolish the laws that attempt to limit my 2A rights.

mdimeo
02-04-2011, 11:39 AM
I'd protect any weapons suitable to an individual rifleman in a body of infantry, which would put automatic assault rifles, hand grenades, etc., on one side, and RPG's, launchers, and crew-served weapons on the other.

Basically, if pretty much any infantry soldier would have one, we should too. If there's only one in a typical squad, I'd give it lesser protection (background checks ok, basically).

Given that almost everyone agrees lines must be drawn, I think that's a pretty good compromise. And I'd give ground on the grenades, too, since they can be improvised in case of revolution.

Glock22Fan
02-04-2011, 11:52 AM
Well, those of you who want to limit it to defensive weapons, how are you (theoretically) planning to overthrow an oppressive government without a few grenades, anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and the like?

Not that I think it's likely or desirable, but let us not forget that the 2nd isn't just to defend ourselves; it has an offensive side as well.

aklover_91
02-04-2011, 12:09 PM
I'd protect any weapons suitable to an individual rifleman in a body of infantry, which would put automatic assault rifles, hand grenades, etc., on one side, and RPG's, launchers, and crew-served weapons on the other.

Basically, if pretty much any infantry soldier would have one, we should too. If there's only one in a typical squad, I'd give it lesser protection (background checks ok, basically).

Given that almost everyone agrees lines must be drawn, I think that's a pretty good compromise. And I'd give ground on the grenades, too, since they can be improvised in case of revolution.

But then you start getting into arbitrary lines again. You do see individuals carrying anti armor rockets, but that don't jive, a SAW is often operated by an individual, but a pintle mounted 240 is crew served.

So how do you make that distinction? Some weight limit you pull out of thin air? What it looks like?

I hope to god we never have to deal with another civil war or an invading military, but you defeat the purpose of the idea if you prohibit what you'd need to effectively fight a war.

command_liner
02-04-2011, 12:24 PM
The 2nd A is a protection of a right already mentioned earlier in the body of the Const.

One cannot have Letters of Marque and Reprisal unless some private person already
has a crew-served weapon system to execute such letters. It is pretty easy to
make an argument that the Const. requires us, at least some of us, to have first-class
crew-served weapons capable of inflicting serious death and destruction.

zhyla
02-04-2011, 1:38 PM
That's just arguing over where to draw the line of infringement. The Brady bunch will argue it should be drawn at N=1.

Exactly. If we take the extreme example of a nuclear bomb (N=5 million or whatever) I think we can all agree that the risk of the one nutjob outweighs the potential benefit of law-abiding civilians being able to overthrow their despicable government because they have a nuke.

Firearms (say, N=20) are below my threshold. For more "dangerous" things like RPG's (N=50) and small explosives (N=500) I am ok with some infringement in the form of permitting and training.

No right is absolute. You have the right own a firearm but you don't have the right to point it at my face. A nuke is always pointed at my face. Carrying a hand grenade around me is pointing it at my face.

My point is not about the details of what things are how dangerous, just that even for a 2A supporter, there is a line.

Cali-Shooter
02-04-2011, 2:22 PM
Considering the 2a was originally meant to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, I'll take an F-22 please.

I'd want an automated Stinger SAM site in my backyard, as well as an AH-64 Apache :D

Caladain
02-04-2011, 2:26 PM
Exactly. If we take the extreme example of a nuclear bomb (N=5 million or whatever) I think we can all agree that the risk of the one nutjob outweighs the potential benefit of law-abiding civilians being able to overthrow their despicable government because they have a nuke.

Firearms (say, N=20) are below my threshold. For more "dangerous" things like RPG's (N=50) and small explosives (N=500) I am ok with some infringement in the form of permitting and training.

No right is absolute. You have the right own a firearm but you don't have the right to point it at my face. A nuke is always pointed at my face. Carrying a hand grenade around me is pointing it at my face.


I'm with you on Strategic weapons. Nuke, Chem, Bio.

But anything available to a modern infantry man/tanker/pilot should be fair game short of those. IF you're okay with the fact the 2A is about the populace having the ability to fight back against the government, god forbid, then it follows you should be perfectly fine with folks having MANPAD's, Anti-tank weapons, and even Crew served. If i have the cash, i should be able to purchase a brand new F22, fuel it, arm it, etc.

Personally, i'm all for it. IF you feel the need to stock a few MANPAD's in your basement..more power to you.

Will this result in someone taking a potshot at an airliner and bringing it down? Given a long enough timeline, yeah. Such is the price of freedom that occasionally bad #*$@ happens. Such is life.

gobler
02-04-2011, 2:41 PM
Shall Not Be Infringed. After reading documents and other correspondence of our founders it is clear they intended that the People had not only a right but a moral responsibility to arm themselves with their weapon of choice. They had to borrow privet owned cannon to fight the British so Washington and Jefferson's attitude was to make certain the government had no way to dictate who owned what. The 2nd A had several drafts and if you read them it is very clear.

If I could afford a tank then I should be able to buy one.


I do think WMDs should be out of bounds considering if a leak should happen it could be devastating.

Carnivore
02-04-2011, 5:08 PM
I draw the line at strategic weapons.

NCB. Nuke, Chem, Bio. Go ahead and restrict those, have fun, etc.

Other than that......
:43:

Speak only for yourself....I always carry some mutated anthrax....for duck hunting.:D

Lrchops
02-04-2011, 5:12 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I'm not sure that includes Rocket Propelled Grenades, but everything else should be ok!

SickofSoCal
02-04-2011, 5:19 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I want machine guns legalized. And no, that doesn't mean everyone will own one. Look at pre-1986.....did every gun owner also own a machine gun? No, they did not.

SickofSoCal
02-04-2011, 5:23 PM
Here's something to think about for the people that don't think you should have RPGs and grenades and such. If a person is a law abiding citizen then why shouldn't they be able to own whatever it takes to defend their family from evil? Is just there mere posession of something enough to transform someone into a criminal? That's what your oppressive government believes.

^ On this same note, the thing of it is everything the Founders said and wrote reinforces that they wanted the ultimate power of the country to be IN THE HANDS OF THE CITIZENRY.

pdq_wizzard
02-04-2011, 5:24 PM
whatever LE / Security operates on US soil, we should be able to have what they have....

jeff762
02-04-2011, 5:29 PM
i would like a mlrs please.

HondaMasterTech
02-04-2011, 10:15 PM
Human error aside, ;), powerful weapons in the hands of sane people do no harm. That concept cannot be ignored.

Sufficient armament is just as important as a strong sense of responsibility.

It is your right to be armed to protect yourself and your family.

It is your duty to be armed to protect your country.

How powerful your weapons are should coincide with your knowledge of the operation of the weapon, your ability to control the effect of the weapon and your ability to take responsibility for the weapon.

Tarn_Helm
02-05-2011, 7:53 AM
Just taking a general tally of the Calguns members attitude of our current laws

I want AZ's carry and self-defense laws along with TX's laws allowing the use of lethal force to defend property.

And no, no restriction on guns, including full auto, RPGs, etc.

Governments must fear their people or they will rob them, twice, and call the robberies a "bail out," and say the "bail outs" are for our own good.

There is no such thing as "reasonable" gun regulation of the rights of law abiding citizens who do not fall into the class of prohibited persons.

(I include among the prohibited such dudes as Jared Loughner. The problem with his case is that he is protected by privacy laws connected to education and mental health, which make reporting his need for 5150 very difficult. Hence, he and others like him walk around crazy, after having been banned from campus two months before he ever bought his gun, legally, in a gun shop.)

Falconis
02-05-2011, 8:41 PM
If someone wants to blow 10 to 50 bucks in 2 seconds with one pull of the trigger, more power to them. To be honest though, someone who owns an RPG in a populated area kind of worries me. Not because he'll go nuts, possibility but not primary, but because you know some jackass will try to make a homemade warhead and blow up the entire 10th floor of his complex.

How much are RPG's anyways? Launcher and ammo ...

Stonewalker
02-05-2011, 8:51 PM
I don't think there are enough options here. I generallly like and agree with accepted legal precedent -

Any weapon that can be reasonably used/carried/maintained by one person and is not area-of-effect.

This covers any non-explosive small arm and I think the idea is you should be able to capture ordnance with small arms.

Solcat
02-05-2011, 9:08 PM
Exactly. If we take the extreme example of a nuclear bomb (N=5 million or whatever) I think we can all agree that the risk of the one nutjob outweighs the potential benefit of law-abiding civilians being able to overthrow their despicable government because they have a nuke.

Firearms (say, N=20) are below my threshold. For more "dangerous" things like RPG's (N=50) and small explosives (N=500) I am ok with some infringement in the form of permitting and training.

No right is absolute. You have the right own a firearm but you don't have the right to point it at my face. A nuke is always pointed at my face. Carrying a hand grenade around me is pointing it at my face.

My point is not about the details of what things are how dangerous, just that even for a 2A supporter, there is a line.

Well said I think. People have different views of what N needs to be, sometimes relative to perceived sanity of those with ability to get weapon X.

And keep in mind when you are picking a value for "N" that just pictures of some of the WMD mentioned (or just long concrete tubes as it turns out) were Probable Cause for the invasion of another country and a long expensive occupation according to our former President, much less a 2A issue. Again, based on perceived sanity, or obedience of the owner. I.E., he did not have a permit for those weapons.

Deadred7o7
02-05-2011, 11:02 PM
22 redcoats so far :censored:

cbn620
02-05-2011, 11:57 PM
I don't really care too much about machine guns, and I don't even want to talk about rocket launchers at this point. I don't see how making them illegal would make them any harder to get, I don't see a justification for making them illegal, but I look at it as a one step at a time thing. I am very comfortable saying anything that's semi-automatic and center fire should be legal regardless of features/capacity. I accept temporary compromise because the fight is never over. If that means in 50, 100 or 500 years people are finally able to own machine guns, I guess I see no consequence.

cbn620
02-06-2011, 12:07 AM
By the way someone mentioned explosives. I've had way more times in my life I could have made a legitimate and peaceful use of some ANFO than I have for any gun, much as I love my guns and see them as a necessity. I've done rural landscaping quite a bit in the past and when you're looking at a 400 pound tree stump that needs to be removed with no living person for several miles in every direction, you see the absurdity of it all. Just to be clear, I'm not saying I've actually acquired or used any illegal explosive. Just saying there have been plenty of times in my life where it would have come in handy. I think binary explosives should be more available to individuals. If some system of control is necessary to make everyone feel safer, I am willing to compromise but it must be more lenient than it is now.

PBRStreetgang
02-06-2011, 12:18 AM
My wife, who is a nice sweet person, and is not a gun person at all, says "Shall not be infringed....if the government has it, and you don't, how can you overthrow a corrupt government?"

I guess she has a point, since it is what the founding fathers had in mind when they made the 2nd in the first place.

Veggie
02-06-2011, 12:24 AM
The entire point of the second amendment was to ensure the people had the means to fight the military. Any weapon they have we were supposed to be able to have. Good luck battling tanks and fighter jets with small arms.