Your thoughts on Gun Regulations (Specifically Ownership)

[jsquared]

At the time of The Revolution and many years after, private individuals owned artillery, and warships (the tanks of their day). There is a reason the founders used the word "arms" not "guns".

Sure, and at the time, those arms were the most technologically advanced and deadly weapons available around the world. That was the frame of mind they were in when they wrote the Constitution, that people having these super machines of destruction was the best way to keep the government free from tyranny.

Nowadays, one person with a bad outlook on life and a fully armed F18 could kill literally tens of thousands of people in a few seconds. Its a different world than it was in the 18th century, you can't deny that.

 

[jlcnuke]

My opinion is that if the govt can have it we should be able to as well. Of course almost nobody could afford the really good stuff...

I think all arms should be legal for civilian ownership. Arms that are potentially very dangerous should be limited in sale to those who could afford to safely store and manage them

 

[Rommel]

"...shall not be infringed." is how the founders phrased the second amendment. They did not feel it was appropriate for the government to decide who may and who may not bear arms and used the word "infringed" for a reason.

But yet they do it everyday. Not saying it's right though.

 

[Rommel]

At the time of The Revolution and many years after, private individuals owned artillery, and warships (the tanks of their day). There is a reason the founders used the word "arms" not "guns".

So just to clarify this do you believe that a civilian should have the right ANYTHING that is on the worlds market?

 

[Rommel]

Wow. I guess I didn't think it was going to go here but then again I can see how some could interpret the right as they do. I was just thinking firearms.

 

[Rommel]

Sure, and at the time, those arms were the most technologically advanced and deadly weapons available around the world. That was the frame of mind they were in when they wrote the Constitution, that people having these super machines of destruction was the best way to keep the government free from tyranny.

Nowadays, one person with a bad outlook on life and a fully armed F18 could kill literally tens of thousands of people in a few seconds. Its a different world than it was in the 18th century, you can't deny that.

I'm going to have agree with some of this. I would have to believe that obtaining plutonium, Virginia Class subs or fully armed B-52's was not what the founding fathers had in mind, lol.

 

[jwhited]

My view on weapons is the same as my view on most things.. So long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, there is no reasonable justification to prohibit it. Having said that, if I blow up my neighbor's house with a hand grenade, I should be held accountable for blowing up my neighbor's house - Regardless of the method used. Damaging or destroying another person's life or property will never be legal.

Unfettered liberty is a tricky subject, though. It requires a high level of both intellect and responsibility on the part of all citizens to function properly. So, to that extent.. How much "nanny" should be expected of the State?

 

[jsquared]

Like I said I am of two minds on it. Some lunatic hell bent on murdering thousands of people doesnt give a crap about tyranny, he just wants to kill people. Giving that person the means to do so is a gamble. If you take the whole concept of the second amendment out of the equation and just focus on what could happen if the weapons markets of the world were wide open it is a very scary thing to consider.

Which totally sucks, because I would like nothing more than for our government to be on a level playing field with its populace, arms-wise. Too bad they wont sell all their planes and tanks and subs and buy a ****load of semi-auto AR15's haha.

 

[jwhited]

Like I said I am of two minds on it. Some lunatic hell bent on murdering thousands of people doesnt give a crap about tyranny, he just wants to kill people. Giving that person the means to do so is a gamble. If you take the whole concept of the second amendment out of the equation and just focus on what could happen if the weapons markets of the world were wide open it is a very scary thing to consider.

Which totally sucks, because I would like nothing more than for our government to be on a level playing field with its populace, arms-wise. Too bad they wont sell all their planes and tanks and subs and buy a ****load of semi-auto AR15's haha.

The thing about that is, that where there is a will, there is a way. If someone is hell-bent on doing something, they will find a way to accomplish their task. That's why things like gun control and drug prohibition effectively fails. The only form of gun control that would be even remotely effective is absolute prohibition of arms, and even that wouldn't discourage determined criminals. As usual, it only punishes the law-abiding citizen.

 

[captdave77]

When you talk about buying bombers and stuff like that, you miss one key point. A person with that kind of scratch can buy what he wants anyway.