Should Americans be allowed to purchase any firearm?

[AlbcAlbrr]

Absolutely yes!

[courage1]

i would be completly happy if i could get rid of my bullet buttons...

[dieselpower]

like i said, i had a feeling people would NOT like what i had to say but i when people write in magazines how guns should be limited, i wonder why they don't think about other things that could cause lots and lots of problems.

in short, no need to greatly limit guns b/c there are too many other things that someone bent on destruction and malice could do to ruin our lives to a much greater degree. especially with so many educated people and technology now days.

Mrs Clinton, I understand your fears and concerns over firearm ownership and your opposition to civilians owning weaponry of war to defend themselves against the government...but that's what the 2nd A was for.

As long as all safety measures are kept in place...Bill Gates should be allowed to own a nuke. Yes that is real freaking scary...but that's why our government is allowed SOME leeway on restrictions.

The same force in nature that stops a US President from nuking Las Vegas is the same force in nature that would stop Bill Gates. Its only in your mind do you see a difference in the two.

Your mind has been molded to conform and bow to the government and allow them "scary" things.... They are no more ethical than anyone else and in the long run have LESS morals then the average joe.

[penguinofsleep]

it seems like people are not understanding my point and perspective.

im not happy about the government monopoly on the possession/ability to use weapons bigger than ours either. im not saying the government deserves this monopoly on force and power. im fine with people protecting themselves from governments, tyrants, terrorists, the boogieman, w/e. and i realize that it is difficult to do so when you are confined to small arms and the other guy has nukes, mortars, or w/e else. i also realize the government is no different than the people that make it up, including the idiots that i wouldn't trust with a bb gun and yet they have access to nukes or w/e, or even little things like night vision, infrared, etc.

however, as i said originally, like anything in this world, not everyone is going to be responsible with their possessions. that's why i don't want ANYONE being able to own a nuke. you say yourself as long as all safety measures are kept in place and i agree with you here. and i view that as a restriction. but i mention restrictions, not banning, b/c there are people who are silly and negligent enough to say NOT keep sufficient safety measures in place and people who would want them w/o sufficient responsibility being within their means. then there are a few others such as mr gates who i imagine could provide sufficient responsibility for such possessions.

the way i see it, being able to provide sufficient safety measures would be a form of restrictions, as showing you are able to provide security staff, electronic measures and safeties, etc. means not everyone gets one. ie i would say most of us living in single homes, condos, or other residencies would not have the ability to provide sufficient safety measures to own a nuke, and hence there would be some restrictions on our ability to own them. say we were like bill gates, then i wouldn't be as worried.

my other point was probably misunderstood. it was simply me questioning why guns are continuously regulated when there are so many other things that "those evil people" could use to cause problems. ie in many operations when they bust and catch terrorist cells, especially in europe, the find guns, bombs, ordinance, and in one case i believe it was an icbm (or some kind of missile, etc publication wasn't 100% clear on this). yet those were always the last things taken away. the first things taken away were always related to things involving the dissemination of information and ideas. ie cut internet access, take phones, computers, and hard drives. then take other important possessions and propaganda, writings, w/e. lastly take the arms away. so i question why stuff like computers and cell phones are unrestricted while guns are. that or the thought police haven't fully arrive yet.

[morfeeis]

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?

see bold
The cops shot 9 people that day, the bad guy shot one. I knew i wouldn't agree with you after you supported restrictions but i stopped caring after i read this last part in bold.

[SilverTauron]

it seems like people are not understanding my point and perspective.

im not happy about the government monopoly on the possession/ability to use weapons bigger than ours either. im not saying the government deserves this monopoly on force and power. im fine with people protecting themselves from governments, tyrants, terrorists, the boogieman, w/e. and i realize that it is difficult to do so when you are confined to small arms and the other guy has nukes, mortars, or w/e else. i also realize the government is no different than the people that make it up, including the idiots that i wouldn't trust with a bb gun and yet they have access to nukes or w/e, or even little things like night vision, infrared, etc.

however, as i said originally, like anything in this world, not everyone is going to be responsible with their possessions. that's why i don't want ANYONE being able to own a nuke. you say yourself as long as all safety measures are kept in place and i agree with you here. and i view that as a restriction. but i mention restrictions, not banning, b/c there are people who are silly and negligent enough to say NOT keep sufficient safety measures in place and people who would want them w/o sufficient responsibility being within their means. then there are a few others such as mr gates who i imagine could provide sufficient responsibility for such possessions.

WHO are YOU, exactly, to determine the responsibility level of anyone besides yourself?

I forgive you for not realizing this, but your attitude is identical to the Ayatollahs in Iran who believe they know what is good and bad for their society by dint of their scholarship. The Ayatollah is a man just like the shopkeeper is, and in fact is just as emotional, logical, stable, and unstable as the shopkeeper.

The difference between the occasionally unstable and irresponsible Ayatollah and the occasionally unstable and irresponsible shopkeeper, is the Ayatollah has the force of arms-and the shopkeeper does not.

When everyone has unrestricted access to the same arms, balance is maintained. Either everyone, psychotic and normal, recognizes the same boundaries of self defense and personal soverignity-or the people who break it and assault their neighbors are sent to their maker.

Judging which men and women should and should not keep arms is not the purview of government composed of men and women, nor is it the concern of well meaning people like yourself who think certain arms are beyond the responsibility level of the typical person.

the way i see it, being able to provide sufficient safety measures would be a form of restrictions, as showing you are able to provide security staff, electronic measures and safeties, etc. means not everyone gets one. ie i would say most of us living in single homes, condos, or other residencies would not have the ability to provide sufficient safety measures to own a nuke, and hence there would be some restrictions on our ability to own them. say we were like bill gates, then i wouldn't be as worried.

You say "safety measure" as if they're actually intended to prevent attack.

News flash:most so called "security measures" are marketing stunts designed to present the image of security.

Its why BMW installs an anti-theft system in their cars, even though the computer engineered chip can be hacked and bypassed with a cursory amount of technical knowledge.

It is why portable gun safes are marketed as "secure", even though a stiff drop -or failing that a crowbar and elbow grease-can open them. Some so called "gun lockboxes" can be picked open with a paperclip.

TSA? One of the largest marketing operations in government history. If someone really wanted to get arms, bombs, etc onto an aircraft they'd get a job slinging baggage. If the terrorist lived on the wild side, they'd likely get away with strolling right through "security" with an explosive device.The exercise of making you take your shoes off and "wanding" you is designed to make the passengers feel save about spending money on air travel, not actually stopping terrorism.

my other point was probably misunderstood. it was simply me questioning why guns are continuously regulated when there are so many other things that "those evil people" could use to cause problems. just saying that if i were the government (or substitute group/entity of your choice) and bent on solidifying my power, i wouldn't be too worried about guns anymore. maybe 100 or 75 years ago, but not as much today. ie in most other countries when they bust and catch terrorist cells, the find guns, bombs, ordinance, and in one case i believe it was an icbm (or some kind of missile, etc publication wasn't 100% clear on this). yet those were always the last things taken away. the first things taken away were always related to things involving the dissemination of information and ideas. ie cut internet access, take phones, computers, and hard drives. then take other important possessions and propaganda, writings, w/e. lastly take the arms away.

"Political power flows from the barrel of a gun"-Mao Zedong

When you control the information, you control what the people know. However, even the strongest dictatorship occasionally screws up. There's a scandal you cannot hide, or some sort of internal failure which makes the rounds despite the best efforts of the brutally efficient Secret Police.

Now what?

If you have all the guns, and the people don't, worst case scenario you order your band of thugs to open fire and put down the rebellion. When the protesters have the guns, the only thing being put down is your totalitarian regime.

Hence the necessity of gun control for any power hungry government, now and in the future.

[Cowboy T]

"Political power flows from the barrel of a gun"-Mao Zedong

When you control the information, you control what the people know. However, even the strongest dictatorship occasionally screws up. There's a scandal you cannot hide, or some sort of internal failure which makes the rounds despite the best efforts of the brutally efficient Secret Police.

Now what?

If you have all the guns, and the people don't, worst case scenario you order your band of thugs to open fire and put down the rebellion. When the protesters have the guns, the only thing being put down is your totalitarian regime.

Hence the necessity of gun control for any power hungry government, now and in the future.

Snipping most of your post only for brevity, because you summed it up beautifully here. The Second Amendment doesn't, and never did, have anything to do with "sporting" or "hunting". Rather, it has everything to do with Lord Acton's wise advice:

"All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Who watches the watchers? We, The People, do. And to do that, we need the same tools that the government officials have at their disposal. Back in the day it was muskets, bayonets, and cannons, because that's what the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, police) had. Today, those same forces have M-16's, M-60's, etc. That's why Switzerland will never become a dictatorship. Every last Swiss male citizen, and quite a few female citizens, between 20 and 30 has a full-auto assault rifle. Their people ARE the Army.

However, like some others here, I too draw the line at nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare weapons. An accidental (really a negligent, I know) discharge of a full-auto firearm might possibly kill 10 people, yes, same as a driver plowing a car into a line of schoolchildren at the bus stop. Extremely bad, no doubt. But an accidental discharge of a nuke/bio/chem weapon can kill an entire city's population instantly. That's one "oops" I don't ever want to see. Strictly speaking, it is a compromise on the 2A, I know that, and I'm willing to live with that specific compromise.

So, my view is that if the police can have it, like the jack-boot thugs with badges in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, then We, The People also should have free access to it.

[penguinofsleep]

pretty much what cowboyT said. except i'd allow a little more than what cops have now to the people.

Tauron:

simply put, im not the one who would determine anything, but im pointing out the unfortunate reality that most people really don't have sufficient technical knowledge or means to have stuff like biological weapons, nukes etc. ie as a simple exercise i am the government and i let you have a nuke right now. how would you with resources and information currently available to you make sure it won't go off? I know I and everyone I know minus one would not be able to answer the question sufficiently. the minus one like a 1% chance he could answer the question and then do so sufficiently. so compromise? yes, most definitely. reasonable imo? yes.

ie how do you prevent the fission mechanism from accidentally going off, how do you prevent the right vibrations and resonances from setting the nuke off (if i remember correctly, the US had an accidental discharge of a small nuclear explosive in a silo when something like a wrench fell down somewhere, hit something, and the nuke went off, luckily it wasn't a big one and it was in a silo)? granted, my questions probably aren't even properly focused, but i the underlying idea is once again, most people don't have the knowledge to do this. if you have enough money, you could hire a bunch of people who did know, but im pretty sure that isn't most people.

im a bit disappointed that you thought by security measures i meant something silly like putting a lock somewhere or having some TSA guys show up or w/e. yes, i realize most commercial "security" is a farce at best, but talking about nukes that could kill 100k+ people on accident, im pretty sure the security systems and measures on those things are going to be pretty robust and not something i'd buy for $100 or $100,000 from a retailer.

lastly, i didn't say no gun control by governments, just that it isn't as big of a deal now.

[CSACANNONEER]

Wow, I sure see a lot of "Yes, anything except..... (what I don't want others to have)" comments here. With all the "no nukes" comments, I'm starting to feel like I'm on a hippie forum.

[ouch1]

pretty much what cowboyT said. except i'd allow a little more than what cops have now to the people.

Tauron:

simply put, im not the one who would determine anything, but im pointing out the unfortunate reality that most people really don't have sufficient technical knowledge or means to have stuff like biological weapons, nukes etc. ie as a simple exercise i am the government and i let you have a nuke right now. how would you with resources and information currently available to you make sure it won't go off? I know I and everyone I know minus one would not be able to answer the question sufficiently. the minus one like a 1% chance he could answer the question and then do so sufficiently. so compromise? yes, most definitely. reasonable imo? yes.

ie how do you prevent the fission mechanism from accidentally going off, how do you prevent the right vibrations and resonances from setting the nuke off (if i remember correctly, the US had an accidental discharge of a small nuclear explosive in a silo when something like a wrench fell down somewhere, hit something, and the nuke went off, luckily it wasn't a big one and it was in a silo)? granted, my questions probably aren't even properly focused, but i the underlying idea is once again, most people don't have the knowledge to do this. if you have enough money, you could hire a bunch of people who did know, but im pretty sure that isn't most people.

Actually nukes are not that easy to get to detonate. A modern nuclear weapon has alot of safety features built into it. The only accidents involving any amount of critical mass were way before the safety measures were put into effect. As for you missile example that was the accident on September 18, 1980 at Little Rock AFB, and that was just the hypergolic fuel of the missile itself exploding. The warhead was recovered undamaged about 100 feet from the launch complex entry gate. Here is the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents

As for giving private citizens nukes or any other chemical, or biological weapon I agree with you. But I do feel that we should have the ability to own the same firearms that the military has. With no exceptions.

-ouch1

[SilverTauron]

pretty much what cowboyT said. except i'd allow a little more than what cops have now to the people.

Tauron:

simply put, im not the one who would determine anything, but im pointing out the unfortunate reality that most people really don't have sufficient technical knowledge or means to have stuff like biological weapons, nukes etc. ie as a simple exercise i am the government and i let you have a nuke right now.

The fact that people don't have nukes has little to do with government restrictions, and more to do with the fact that you just cannot do much with one except set it off. At the risk of being vulger, as Jack Nicholson's character in The Departed said "It don't add inches to your dick".

After you blow one up, its kinda hard to take over the area you blew up unless you want to be king of Gamma Ray Mountain.

If the US Department of Energy said "its OK for people to buy nukes", I doubt anyone would bother to go to the trouble to own one.

ie how do you prevent the fission mechanism from accidentally going off, how do you prevent the right vibrations and resonances from setting the nuke off (if i remember correctly, the US had an accidental discharge of a small nuclear explosive in a silo when something like a wrench fell down somewhere, hit something, and the nuke went off, luckily it wasn't a big one and it was in a silo)? granted, my questions probably aren't even properly focused, but i the underlying idea is once again, most people don't have the knowledge to do this. if you have enough money, you could hire a bunch of people who did know, but im pretty sure that isn't most people.

im a bit disappointed that you thought by security measures i meant something silly like putting a lock somewhere or having some TSA guys show up or w/e. yes, i realize most commercial "security" is a farce at best, but talking about nukes that could kill 100k+ people on accident, im pretty sure the security systems and measures on those things are going to be pretty robust and not something i'd buy for $100 or $100,000 from a retailer.

Fair enough.

lastly, i didn't say no gun control by governments, just that it isn't as big of a deal now.

Wrong.


Notice you cannot make the phrase "gun control" without the word 'control'. That's the entire point of a government, to control the actions of the people being governed. If you stand back and permit a government to do what it naturally does, it will expand like the accretion disk of a black hole until every and any detail regarding human existence is pulled into its infinite maw of power.Look at Soviet society for an example of what every government will become if allowed to reach collapsible mass.

What stops the cycle are the citizens having arms. You can't order someone to report what time they pee or to ask permission for having a kid when that someone has a weapon and the skill to use it.Its difficult to boss someone around when they are a better shot than the agents sent to collect them.

[bobomb]

i think the way the law is written they can control what you can buy from a fedeally licenced dealer but you should be able to make anything you want

[penguinofsleep]

tauron - good points. we don't agree on methods of control, but your ideas are stimulating. anyone else feel free to provide rebuttals against me too, they make for good learning/thinking. im happy not everyone is disagreeing w/ me by saying "because screw the government i do what i want" or "i do what i want b/c im special".

now back to ideas:

control yes, but if the government could make all your non physical assets and electronic wealth disappear, cutoff people's benefits, blacklist them (ie someone is suddenly a mass murder or child molester), lock their electronics, cut off power and water, or whatever else. not that it happens widely if at all right now, but it doesn't seem to be a big jump. and yeah, you could go off and live like the 18th century with my guns to escape the above, but for me, that's pretty much surrendering.

granted there are those that will turn a place into a dump through the use of brutal force simply so that they can rule for the sake of having power and ruling (ruler in hell instead of a servant in heaven), but clever rulers with the most power throughout history have noted that it is difficult to control the masses and people through force, but much easier to do so through coercion and playing on the innate human fear/s present within all of us. or simply making sure we cannot easily survive without a dependence on them. but yes, like you said, even the biggest governments will mess up, and then they will need a monopoly of force. hence, gun control is a problem for us the people, but there are other ways of messing with people. ie some people out there talking about microchips inside all of us and eliminating cash... imagine not being able to feed yourself (or kids, w/e), see a doctor, or provide basic needs b/c your chip or lack thereof says you are blacklisted and how fast most people would give in at that point. that would be a much greater living nightmare imo than not having guns. not that no guns/force wouldn't already be a nightmare... -shrudders-

likewise, as a government or anyone seeking power and total control over a populace, id be more worried about controlling thoughts against me and indoctrination or at least some sort of thinking that isn't actively focused against me but as far as i can imagine that is still almost impossible right now. then id worry about a monopoly of force.

lastly, for me this isn't a big anti government complaint, but rather i want to see what and how others think about ensuring freedom and liberty. if a government that ensured my freedoms and liberty existed (short of say freedom to freely harm or murder innocents), id be behind it. ie more of a moderator instead of a ruler.