Should Americans be allowed to purchase any firearm?

[halfflash]

xxx

[NoHeavyHitter]

Of course. This whole "has no sporting application" means absolutely nothing with regards to the 2nd amendment.

"Sporting use" is a term for people who entertain a "Bill of Needs" instead of a Bill of Rights.

[CK_32]

Why is everyone blogging about this?

It's not that big of a deal. Everyone's is talking like recoil mags opinion is cement and final..

[jrwhitt]

2nd Amendment is not related solely to sporting purposes, although that is one of the uses a firearm can be put to.

[halfflash]

I'm also curious, why people were so offended by one man's opinion. I'm really shocked that so many vendors pulled out so quickly.

[CBruce]

I've been trying to follow the blow back from the recoil magazine blunder.
Full story here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...coil-magazine/

In a nut shell, the editor of "recoil" magazine said that civilians should not be allowed to own certain weapons, such as the MP7, because it is "purpose build" and "has no sporting application". Many big advertisers such as Magpul, Silencer Co, Pantaeo, and Haley Strategic have canceled their adds, and no longer support the publication.

I see his point of view, completely. I believe that there are certain weapons that civilians should not poses. Simple because the risk of those weapons being stolen or used maliciously is too great.

It feels like gun violence and mass shootings have been on the rise, the empire state building, Aurora Colorado, Hollywood/vine, the temple in Wisconsin, to name a few. I'm sure that these perpetrators purchased their weapons legally, and were responsible gun owners UNTIL they went and broke the law. What if the Hollywood/Vine shooter had an MP7and a few magazines? I shutter to think.
This is the point I think the writer wanted to make, because I think about this myself.

So my question to you, is should we as law abiding citizens be allowed to purchase any firearm we want, as long as we pass the required background checks?

Almost any, but seriously the type of restrictions I'm thinking are for things like nuclear or biological weapons. I can't offhand think of any current firearms that aren't suitable for responsible gun owners, but if somebody makes a mini-nuke gun that's probably a bad idea to throw up for sale at Big-5

[bob7122]

I'm also curious, why people were so offended by one man's opinion. I'm really shocked that so many vendors pulled out so quickly.

because they have read the constitution and know that the founding fathers wanted the 2a in place to protect against a tyrannical gov't. and the right tools are needed for the right job.

[five.five-six]

Yes, and without ID, asking someone for ID to buy a firearm is racist.

[repubconserv]

Anything. I will stop at nukes though. (and other weapons designed to exterminate large amounts of people.... though I just now am wondering why I would trust the government with these weapons, but wouldn't trust an ordinary citizen....)

Really though, in terms of firearms, I think the ones that are heavily regulated now (MGs, DDs, SBRs, etc) are literally no more dangerous than the ones that (on a federal level) are unregulated.

[halfflash]

lol, so hope of getting my hands on that sweet mini nuke gun?

What's the difference between a responsible gun owner and an active shooter 24 hours before the incident?

[surplus-addict]

Anything that is man portable.


Armored vehicles are a grey area, but definitely any type of weapon that is man portable to take them out. C4, RPG's, MG's, Stingers, all should be available. Basically, enough to give you a fighting chance against your current government.

[SilverTauron]

I've been trying to follow the blow back from the recoil magazine blunder.
Full story here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...coil-magazine/

In a nut shell, the editor of "recoil" magazine said that civilians should not be allowed to own certain weapons, such as the MP7, because it is "purpose build" and "has no sporting application". Many big advertisers such as Magpul, Silencer Co, Pantaeo, and Haley Strategic have canceled their adds, and no longer support the publication.

I see his point of view, completely. I believe that there are certain weapons that civilians should not poses. Simple because the risk of those weapons being stolen or used maliciously is too great.

It feels like gun violence and mass shootings have been on the rise, the empire state building, Aurora Colorado, Hollywood/vine, the temple in Wisconsin, to name a few. I'm sure that these perpetrators purchased their weapons legally, and were responsible gun owners UNTIL they went and broke the law. What if the Hollywood/Vine shooter had an MP7and a few magazines? I shutter to think.
This is the point I think the writer wanted to make, because I think about this myself.

So my question to you, is should we as law abiding citizens be allowed to purchase any firearm we want, as long as we pass the required background checks?

No.

There should be no background check at all.

As your examples prove,a background check only stops someone who has a record AND their case is actually in the NICS system.The Brady checks do nothing against someone who plans an attack with a previously clean record.Even a convict need only find a willing friend or spouse who can straw puchase a particular gun.

As far as 'restricting' certain arms go,its a fools errand.All a crook need do is find a cop or a city employee in LE willing to sell guns out of the public armory,and that's that.Recently a cop got busted in NY selling NYPD guns on the side,and odds are those weapons will never be recovered.

So much for restricting acess to deadly firearms for public safety.

[Whatisthis?]

1. Banning all guns will do nothing to keep firearms from criminals. The ones currently out there will remain and a crook can just buy some from a LEO that is willing to sell (as said above^^^).

2. Restricting certain firearms is ridiculous. Are they attempting to stop mass shootings? Because restricting certain firearms hasn't stopped them from happening. If the deranged psychopath did not have firearms, they would do something else disastrous... If these people don't get a hold of firearms, they aren't just going to check themselves into a mental institution.

Also, when I first started getting into firearms, I thought some restrictions were good... then I realized they actually do little to nothing and politics are just doing that because they cannot yet achieve their ultimate goal of banning all firearms (Yee is an example)... because we don't need firearms. This world is full of unicorns and rainbows and not criminals or people with bad intentions/morals/ethics.

[Dantedamean]

Only weapons that should not be allowed in the hands of civilians are biological, chemical, and nuclear. Other than that, if the military uses it a civilian should be able to own it.

[sharxbyte]

i dont think we need (should have?) RPG's, but those aren't guns.