Should Americans be allowed to purchase any firearm?

[drkphibr]

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.

+1M ^

Just love it when others tell me what I need or don't need....

[POLICESTATE]

Wait... you're saying a world without the NFA of 1934 or the GCA of 1968...

(goes and plants face on window of time machine like a 5 year old looks out the window when it starts to snow)

What I would do to get a world like that back

Yeah... would be nice. Maybe one day we'll get there!

[elSquid]

I see his point of view, completely.

I don't.

Because in the VERY SAME ISSUE ( page 54 ) the magazine discusses how to purchase a 40mm grenade launcher via an NFA DD permit.

The same issue also discusses how to legally purchase suppressors, short barreled rifles, machine guns, and sawn-off shotguns.

Is the MP7 completely unacceptable for the public to own due to the possibility of misuse, but the transferable M-60 machine gun ( page 51 ) is fine? Does anyone think that an MP7 is a more lethal weapon than a belt fed 7.62N GPMG? Evidently RECOIL magazine does...

-- Michael

[Eldraque]

give them an inch, they take a mile. Obama and Hilary are already working on getting rid of all semi auto weapons.

less gun control is good.

for example: someone breaks into my house with an MP7. I take a M60 or an AA12 and blow him away. its called checks and balances

[jshoebot]

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear on this.

Arms, such as might be employed by a soldier -- that's an individual soldier -- should be denied to no free citizen.

Cannons, warships, and by extension tanks and attack helicopters and ICBM's, those were always meant to be community assets, not for the individual.

Interesting view. What about privateers? Those were privately owned warships.

Extrapolating to today, the line would be drawn somewhere in the midst of belt-fed machine guns, with the more obviously crew-served being beyond the extent of the 2A. In my opinion, the Recoil editor's commentary is inconsistent with the intent of the Second Amendment.

In the era of our war for independence, cannon were privately owned. Obvious crew-served weapons, owned by individuals.

[GW]

No kids, felons or loonies
Otherwise let your credit limit be your guide.
I want gunshows to be like they were in the early 90's but with Solothurns and M-2's

[safewaysecurity]

It's sad how many on this forum think gun control is ok...

[Safety1st]

If you can afford it, you can buy it.


Look, our gov will sell weapons to anybody. As long as they're a president or dictator of some ****hole country. Are you telling me the dictator of Yemen or the Saudi Royal family (we just sold them 60 billion in arms) is more trustworthy than your average american citizen?? Seriously?

[locosway]

For those who aren't able to understand why gun owners everywhere are upset by Mr. Tsai's ignorance..... Ask yourself how an editor of a "gun" mag could be so uninformed as to the 2nd Amendment and it's meaning. And then ask yourself how a "gun" magazine could EVER hire an editor with such obvious ignorance to gun rights.


Now that I have that off my chest..... Does anyone know if this gun shop is real and open for business? http://whois.domaintools.com/valkyrietactical.com
Because it would appear that a man with the same name as the ignorant editor owns this gun shop.

Owning a domain and owning a business are two different things, and one does not suggest the other.

[stix213]

If you can hold it you should be able to buy it, as long as you're not crazy or a violent felon.

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

OMG I haven't laughed that hard at a comment in a while lol

[Ape]

Owning a domain and owning a business are two different things, and one does not suggest the other.

Good point.... So does anyone who lives in that area know if this is a real gun shop and who owns it?

[as_rocketman]

Interesting view. What about privateers? Those were privately owned warships.

In the era of our war for independence, cannon were privately owned. Obvious crew-served weapons, owned by individuals.

Privateers operated under a Letter of Marque and Reprisal issued by the Continental Congress or other community agency. To call them "privately owned" is an oversimplification.

Similarly for cannons and their like. Owning a cannon was one thing, owning a powder house -- in a period of national emergency, when powder was always in desperately short supply -- was another.

Again, as I said, the Founders did not intend to forbid individual ownership of larger weaponry in every case, they merely did not enshrine such a right in the Constitution. The Second Amendment limits government, not the rights of the people. That fixed, supposedly immutable limit refers to individual weaponry, not artillery.

[watsonville]

I can see in the future rubber gloves and Penetrating oil. Thank you mr obama

[A-J]

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.

Why should the fears of a few be justification for oppression of the many?

I support your right to voice your opinion, regardless of the fact that I disagree with you. Now how about you support my RKBA, whether you agree with it or not. That's what the BOR is all about.

[halfflash]

I'm an advocate for looser gun restrictions.
I understand that more guns does not mean more violence
I understand that criminals will find ways to get guns no matter what

I don't agree that all firearms are equally as dangerous. An active shooter in a mall can do less damage with a derringer than he can with an AA12. How can we stop this? By forcing more gun restriction? NO. Because the damage that he does with the derringer can still be massive. By adding more responsible armed citizens is the only good answer that I can come up with.
BUT a gun battle at the mall between one active shooter and 2 citizens, all with AA12s could be a disaster. Remembering that not all CCW carriers are as practiced and aware of their surroundings as we are.
Right now AA12s (as far as I know) are not available to the general population. could they still be stolen by criminals? Yes, but the low numbers of them in the general population is reflected in their numbers in the criminal population.

I agree with the idea that if the military has it, it should be available to the public. But why stop at small arms? If I can afford it, why shouldn't I be able to purchase howitzers, and F16s?

before I get flamed more, I'm trying to learn here. I've never been able to talk to such educated and knowledgeable people about these issues. So thank you for all the responses so far, and don't hate me.