-91 votes

What's wrong with a little gun control?

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why We Need Semi-Autos

Goldstock, here are three reasons why we need semi-autos (there's probably more):

1. Protection From Crime. There was recently a home invasion in Georgia. A housewife shot all 6 rounds from her gun and hit the perp 5 times. He not only lived, he ran out of the house, drove away and finally surrendered to cops when they forced his car over. If there were multiple invaders she and her kids would not be alive. There are more & more of these kinds of stories today. In England, home invasions have dramatically increased since guns were banned.
2. Civil Defense - After every hurricane, the only that stops looters from taking peoples property is citizens with guns.
3. Economic Collapse - Most of the people that frequent this site know that the US government will go bankrupt in the near future - probably within 2 to 5 years. When that happens, the US Dollar will be either be worthless or devalued severely - perhaps 90% to 95%. Welfare, disability, Social Security and other government payments will either stop or be cut drastically.
Drive through the run-down parts of your nearby major city. What do you think the recipients will do when they aren't getting those checks? Or they get the checks and they only purchase a tenth of what they used to?
What will they do when they can't buy food, alcohol, drugs?
What will they do when they can't cool their homes in the summer and can't heat them in the winter?
Imagine the Rodney King riots in every medium to major city in the country. That is what will happen. And if you don't have weapons to protect you and your loved ones then what will you do?

personally

I have a real thing against slippery slopes.. and "a little gun control" sounds like a real slippery slope to me.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Ah, another classic showing

Ah, another classic showing of pages and pages of defending random points with no actual objective....

Goldstock, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you want a federally mandated law forcing more gun control for the US. I can make assumptions that you want more background checks, more regulation, and limit the choices Americans have in their purchase of Weapons/Guns. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Why? What are you trying to fix that is broken currently? Let's get to the problem you are trying to solve, then solve it.

As much as everyone loves to defend massive reaching scoped based arguments, it never works... Let me ask this to all of the people so infuriated by the simple idea of gun control that it actually effects their mood:

Should prisoners be allowed to carry shotguns into court rooms to protect them and their family from the bailiff? Should prisoners be able to carry mounted machine guns into prison for their duration of the prison stay to protect themselves from the machine guns sitting on the towers of the prison?

I think you miss the point.

"I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns."
How nice. People don't want to take my guns ...

"I have no problem with stricter laws."
But, if they did, that is fine with you.

"Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's."
When did you start deciding what everyone needs? Why are you sorry we don't need them? Would you be happy if we did?

"And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one."
That is reassuring.

"These were the same views Reagan had:"
And we care? Why?

"And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun."
Yes. They really are. That implies people need permission from the government to own the means to protect ourselves.

"I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license."
And that goes against the human right to travel. The test is perfunctory. Everyone knows that. The point to the license is to give the government the ability to control you.

"You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel."
No. You don't. In my state it is 15. That is arbitrary. Farmers can operate motor vehicles younger than that. I started operating a tractor when I was strong enough to push down on the clutch.

"You have to have car insurance."
That is recent, and in my opinion, redundant. If an insurance company has the say as to whether you can drive by granting or withholding coverage, then why does anyone need a government-issued drivers license?

"You have to obey posted speed limits."
Everyone does that all right.

"You're not allowed to drink and drive."
I don't care what momma don't allow - gonna play my music anyhow.

"You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking."
Horrors. Please don't take something I don't need away from me!
Felons are not supposed to own guns. If a person is convicted of a felony, they cannot own a firearm. Now, what gun control paternalists want is to make firearms choices for people who are convicted of nothing.

"And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots."
Pay attention to the "militia part," not the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part. Right?
And the founders knew that technology would not advance beyond muskets. That is why they used the generic term "arms" in the second amendment. Sorry. That does not wash.
The militia part says the arms the people were to keep and bear are military weapons for use in defense of the state in cases of emergency.
That means full automatic, armored, explosive. There was to be no standing army. There was to be no foreign empire. The government was to control through consent and not force. The force was to remain in the hands of the people who composed the militia. The militia could only be activated by the government if it had the support of the people. The idea that people are not supposed to keep advanced weapons under the second amendment because they are scarier is without foundation.

"Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you."

So, why is the government so keen on keeping them out of the hands of the people when the semi-automatic rifle is involved in so few gun crimes? What if dead isn't what the government wants you? What if compliance, like obeying speed laws, is the goal? This argument is a whole new level of stupid.

Now the meat.

"I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects."
The Second Amendment was designed to keep power in the hands of the people so that the government would require its support in order to govern. If the government became too bossy about things like drivers licenses, speeding laws, and drinking, the people could say "No" and it could do nothing about it. Why don't you know that?

"Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb?"
Who is we? I don't know why you would want one, but I have no right to tell you you can't have one.
"To(o) extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16?"
Knock yourself out. Just don't violate the rights of someone else while doing so. A dumb ass soldier can do it on the taxpayer dime, why should you not be able to on your own?

"No, how about drive around in a tank?"
I said "Yes." That same reasoning as above.

"Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower?"
Definitely. And if you consider property purchased with tax money public property, "we" already own all of those things.

"Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

"And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?"

My "line" is this; My owning any of the things you list harms nobody. There should be no law against ownership or voluntary trade. Murder by definition kills someone. Rape harms someone. Theft harms someone. The law is there to protect individual rights and to provide compensation for loss and harm done when those rights are violated.

Telling people they may not own something or telling them how they must store something on their property violates their rights to own property. The law in these cases does not punish crime; It is crime.
That is the line. If you don't think you need an AK-47, or an AR-15, then don't put it on your Christmas wish list. Otherwise, don't be telling other people what they need or can have.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

"Well-regulated" means

"Well-regulated" means well-trained or experienced with firearms use. Don't interpret that as a clause for gun control.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

It should also be pointed out that ...

The people and the militia in this context was the same. The militia was all able-bodied men of military age. It was the people.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Nothing wrong with a little

Nothing wrong with a little gun control ....for government, our public servants, and the psychopaths who want to control every aspect of life. They need to be severely regulated in almost every way, including use of weapons. I don't trust them with arms of any kind.

Cyril's picture

Tell me about the "justifications" of "gun control".

Tell me about the "justifications" of "gun control".

I suggest the proponents start thinking about "JOYSTICK CONTROL".

"Times are always a changing", don't they say, claiming some texts can (or should) be reinterpreted?

Yeah, right.

Maybe now is THE TIME FOR UPDATING THEM, then ... here's what their Dear Government is able to do EVEN WITHOUT USING GUNS IN PLAIN SIGHT, just "JOYSTICKS" :

http://www.dailypaul.com/271237/obama-nominated-john-brennan...

Obama: "[...]We need to put a legal architecture in place, [...]and we need congressional help to do that[...]"

(on drones usage as part of "larger War on Terrorism")

They want more gun control laws of their government over their country's citizens' guns?

Well, guess what : THEIR PRESIDENT QUOTED ABOVE WANTS MORE LAWS ALLOWING HIM/THEM TO USE DRONES MORE EASILY - against ANYBODY.

So, right. He/she who appeals to more gun control can continue staying IN DENIAL OF WHERE UNJUST, INHUMANE, MONSTROUS FORCE REALLY IS BEING USED against people's lives.

Oh, maybe THAT doesn't count? That's not happening CLOSE ENOUGH to THEIR front yard. That's not about so dangerous "machine guns". And Piers Morgan has nothing special to say AGAINST it.

That's not disturbing to THEM. Heck, that's not about american women, elders, or kids being killed. (Or NOT YET, anyway. The future deemed "Dangerous Constitutionalist Terrorists" will get shot at first, I suppose.)

And it's done...

A N O N Y M O U S L Y.

A R B I T R A R I L Y.

Plus, that's NO GOOD SOURCE OF MONEY FOR PRIME TIME FOX ADVERTISERS 20 SECONDS BEFORE YET ANOTHER SHOW ON THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING. Is it?

Well, I'm so sorry. I beg to differ in the sentiment.

It's NOT JUST ABOUT REMEMBERING ABOUT THE SANDY HOOK VICTIMS.

It's ABOUT ANY VICTIMS OF ANY TYPE OF MASS SHOOTINGS.

ESPECIALLY the ones almost nobody talks about, except on here, The Daily Paul.

Mind you.

So, here's what I want:

I WANT GOVERNMENT'S JOYSTICKS CONTROL LAWS.

Either that or have THE TRUE TRAITORS fired and prosecuted, like, among many others:

http://www.dailypaul.com/221672/who-is-mr-panetta-exactly

I beg YOU to DO YOUR FREAKING HOMEWORK, Gun Controllers.

YES, DO YOUR HOMEWORK, FIRST, on the sort of "men" you want to give EVEN MORE CONTROL against The People.

Then, THINK AGAIN.

THANK YOU in advance.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

These USEFUL IDIOTS, they "demand a plan"

These USEFUL IDIOTS, they "demand a plan" :

http://www.demandaplan.org/

Well, now kindly allow me to be telling you what they ACTUALLY "demand" and that they DON'T EVEN KNOW they do.

Yes. What they are ACTUALLY demanding to today's elected PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS is...

to lay down for them and everybody else YET ANOTHER ONE OF THE BRICKS THAT PAVE THE ROAD TO SERFDOM :

http://www.dailypaul.com/265048/hayeks-the-road-to-serfdom-i...

"A plan" to disarm The People SLOWLY, BUT SURELY?

Yeah, right.

NOT WITH MY CONDONING.

Let it not be said I didn't try anything (to fix their ignorance). So, "here is a little help for my friend" as the song puts it:

How about them making themselves a favor, taking the time to quit concluding things out of their CRASS EMOTIONAL IDIOCY and, instead, listen a few minutes to what Yuri Bezmenov had to say on the sort of things that "PLANNERS" are ALWAYS bringing to people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8LA-5fmrs

Now, them "Demand A Plan" folks might think about doing their HOMEWORK, FIRST, next time, before opening their mouths with makeup.

Them,

F O O L S,

still, as of today.

Never fear to call a spade "a spade".

AN IGNORANT IS AN IGNORANT.

PERIOD.

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This quote sums up and shuts up

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either federal or state governments, but, where i trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe 1788

Notice the words, unlimited power, birth-right, and people.
All questions answered, enough said.

ConstitutionHugger's picture

I'm a liberty nerd.

This quote is awesome. I posted it on my facebook page where it will probably be ignored. I could read it over and over! And have!

thanks for determining my needs.

love the atomic bomb argument.
really.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Why do you want gun control?

Although you don't mention it in your post, I am assuming you want the gun right limited to save lives?

If that was the true intent of gun laws, why start with limiting a constitutional right? If you want a law to save lives, wouldn't it seem logical to start with a law that would save the most lives first? If you can answer this question I will change my position.

I have a previous post that shows the statistics, so I'm not going to post them here, they can be looked up. More lives are lost from car accidents than ever were from guns, why not change speed limits to say, 35 MPH? Do we really need cars that go over 120MPH, or motorcycles that go over 160MPH? How many lives are lost from tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools, high fat foods, boating accidents, skiing accidents, abortions, war? Why start with guns? So you see, its really not about saving lives is it? Why not just admit it's about limiting an individuals right to self defense?

I will await your answer.

Why not ..

make it illegal to own a car that can break the speed limit?
Why not make it illegal to have a swimming pool deep enough to drown in?
Why not limit electrical current to a level so low people can't be accidentally electrocuted? Make it illegal to have ovens hot enough to burn someone. Make sharp knives and hard bats illegal too.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Why are we allowing people

to live in wood frame Combustible homes? Why would you need a wood frame house? We Have the technology and the materials to build homes that are noncombustible, safe concrete cubes. Chicago did it after the fire, how many lives would that save? What? We are still allowing people to live in flood zones? They could drown in a tsunami. Don't even get me started with bicycles, plastic bags, or gas grills. LOL

Have you

actually read the constitution?

Seriously? Ronald Reagan?

Why would you bring up Ronald Reagan as if that tax-raising, deficit-increasing, gun-grabbing Hollywood actor turned neo-con is an authority on the Second Amendment?

Gun grabbers are freaking everywhere! I was at lunch with "conservatives" who hate Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick, and Barack Obama, but are telling me "nobody needs" magazines over 10 rounds or "assault weapons".

It's really frightening how badly people have been brainwashed to feel the need to use the government as a tool to oppress their neighbors. Reminds me of hearing a liberal woman caller on a radio talk show: she smoked weed all the time but thought it should remain illegal because she thinks some people can't handle it. WTF????

Look the f*** out because even "conservatives" are dangerous gun-grabbing SOBs.

Even though I'm libertarian, I often defend conservatives despite the drug war and abortion war. But now conservatives are turning on guns too, proving that they are as insane as the Huffington Post accuses.

Just another persuasive demonstration that there are only two camps--libertarians and [Hitler/Stalin/Mao]'s. Centrists are [Hitler/Stalin/Mao]-lite.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Cyril's picture

[Info. Complement] "What is wrong about gun control laws?"

"What is wrong about gun control laws?"

I finally found what is fundamentally wrong!

They are just COMPLETELY USELESS!

Actually... EVEN GUNS ARE USELESS!

TO ANYBODY! The People AND to the Government!

North Korea doesn't need ANY OF them. Neither GUNS or LAWS to control them. In fact, seemingly, NOBODY ***EVER*** needs a gun or any type of weapon in North Korea!

Yes, indeed, their "fundamental rights" doesn't even bother to mention (or allude in any way) to self-defense.

How TOTALLY FREAKING KOOL is that?!!!

Let's get rid of this Bill of Rights.

North Korea has found THE PERFECT CONSTITUTION (AND SYSTEM OF SOCIETY) THAT DOES NOT EVEN REQUIRE A 2ND AMENDMENT!

PROOF:

http://www.dailypaul.com/271155/here-are-the-fundamental-rig...

Right?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Since this is already at the top, I will reply more completely..

"I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns."

Then, how do they plan to enforce the law with respect to people that they know are non-compliant? Without enforcement, the law is moot.

"These were the same views Reagan had"

I do not respect Reagan as a small government conservative/libertarian. He raised taxes in one way or another nearly every year that he was in office and ramped up the War on Drugs, among other things. In addition, I do not agree with Reagan's position on guns.

"And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun."

Background checks are already in place. However, there should not be and there is no need for a national database of gun owners.

"And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots."

I am aware of what the 2nd Amendment says, namely -

"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."

Translated from a historical context, it says - "So that a militia may be raised quickly from the populace in order to preserve the freedom of the State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be encroached upon."

The 2nd Amendment does not include - "shall not be infringed unless it becomes politically expedient to do so."

Further, regarding your statement on muskets, is your freedom of speech only protected in transactions written on paper or spoken verbally? For instance, is your freedom of speech not protected on the internet?

The 2nd Amendment was intended as a last line of defense against a tyrannical government. As far as firearms are concerned and the intent of the amendment, the People should have access to equivalent arms as that possessed by the government.

"Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you."

Here are a couple of relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

and

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

In your statement, you imply that you do not put it past the government to murder citizens domestically with drone strikes, and then you try to use that as an excuse to cower and accept disarmament out of fear. If the government murders people en masse in attempts to usurp constitutional protections of our natural rights, it will only be beneficial to our cause in the long term and place this government in a similar historical context with the Stalins, Hitlers, and Maos.

"Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower?"

I'm sure that if someone could afford these items, they could be purchased on the black market - where the criminals shop anyhow. However, I doubt the "Adam Lanzas" of the world would ever be able to afford them. On the other hand, the government uses these weapons in mass murders regularly - even nuclear weapons if you count depleted uranium.

"Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds..."

First of all, they want to ban semi-automatic rifles - not automatic rifles. That expands the gun grab much more widely. However, I am not against people owning fully automatic weapons. Personally, I would prefer the semi-auto for the sake of preserving ammo.

Further, magazines can be cycled through rather quickly. Restricting them to 10 rounds is a useless restriction with regards to the demagogues' alleged motive of "keeping the children safe" from mass shootings. By the way, did you hear about the incident in that happened in China the same day as Sandy Hook where 22 children were stabbed to death?

Maybe a better idea to actually keep the children safe would be to remove the "disarmed victim zone" signs, replace them with signs that say "armed intruders will be shot without question," and allow the teachers and school personnel to voluntarily arm themselves. After all, who in their right mind would put up a sign that said "Gun Free Zone" on any building? Would you put one up at your house? If you owned a convenient store or a bank would you put up such a sign? It's rather silly when you think about it from a logical perspective.

"And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence..."

Actually, stricter gun laws have been demonstrated to increase gun violence. For instance, Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban, and it didn't prevent the Sandy Hook incident. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, and they had a record high number of gun murders this year. Stricter gun laws are counter productive with respect to reducing gun violence. On the other hand, knowledge by potential perpetrators that targets may likely be armed is a good deterrent against violence.

"...I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?"

The questions you pose here are irrelevant. Murder and rape are acts of aggression - initiations of force against another individual - while owning a particular gun is not an initiation of force against anyone.

Libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle that can be summarized as - No person or entity has the right to initiate force against another except in cases of self-defense.

We are not militant. To the contrary, we - if I may - only wish to be left alone as long as we are not infringing on someone else's natural rights. Accordingly, we promote a peaceful foreign policy with use of diplomacy and exchange of ideas and do not wish to occupy the rest of the world through military might. The military should be used for defense not offense. Individuals should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor with no obligation through use of government force to pay others' way. If I cannot rob my neighbor to support myself, I should not be able to use the government to rob my neighbor to do so either. However, libertarians do reserve the right to self-defense - even against a tyrannical government that has us out-armed (but not out-manned).

Smashing good reply.

Smashing good reply.

"Some of the others will say

"Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones."

The government is not a person and has ONLY those rights granted to it by the people. The people should have every right the government does, every right a corporations does, and every right a bank does. Period. The Constitution does not empower the national government to have drones, and many were against the possibility of a peacetime army. "They" are not the ones whose (anything but individual) right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I am and you are. The government overextending its own rights for politico-corporate agenda does not legitimize infringement on mine.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." ~ Declaration of Independence

Edit: I see I got to the party late. The DP continually makes me glad there are liberty-minded people out there. We may yet have a chance.

Cool

I enjoyed reading your perspective

Its a good question and one

Its a good question and one of the many questions you have to ask yourself is if it were legal for you to own an atomic bomb, you gonna pay with it with your next paycheck?

I don't think the people need to worry about nuclear weapons being owned by individuals in a small gov scenario. I think before that you would be lucky to not have been arrested. NONE of us are worthy of having something that powerful.

And as far as I am concerned all nuclear weapons are a threat to everyone on the planet and it should be considered a crime against humanity to own one. Their only humane uses are Demolitions, terraforming, mining (demolitions maybe less realistic). They can trigger earthquakes and are radioactive.

Still I do not see what the point is of banning a semi auto rifle. It really isn't going to help lower crime I doubt it. Crime will probably increase as gun murder goes down slightly.

Cyril's picture

I am DONE.

I am DONE with this here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/271003/whats-wrong-with-a-little-gu...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Goldstock, you raise several legitimate issues

that I believe the Right has failed to successfully counter. Let me try. This will be kind of long so, please bear with me.

1. You don't believe anyone is coming for my guns. Well, I own a semi-automatic .22 that holds over twenty bullets. The gun grabbers are wanting to ban magazines that hold over ten. Granted, they're not going to find my .22 and take it from me. But, I have friends that I would imagine own AR's with more than ten-round magazines. An AR ban w/o a grandfather clause would keep them from buying more than ten rounds in the future and keep me from buying an AR should I ever want to own and shoot one (at targets, not people) just for the fun of it. Sure, they're not going to take my guns, but, there's no reason to take ANY guns from anyone, even from gun merchants.

2. Sorry, but, we don't need AK47s.
I'm pretty sure those are already illegal aren't they?

3. The Second Amendment
Pretty much everything else you bring up deals with the 2nd. The Second Amendment was clearly meant by the Founders and the states that ratified it to mean that Congress could not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That means FDR's National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. That means Reagan's FOPA was unconstitutional. I can see Congress enacting background checks on residents of D.C. and preventing some people such as obvious lunatics from owning guns since Congress has constitutional control over D.C. But, because of the Tenth Amendment, there's no way Congress can constitutionally limit ownership of ANY form of firearm or weapon for that matter within the states unless a constitutional amendment were passed more narrowly defining the Second Amendment.
So, should individual citizens be able to own tanks if they can afford them? From a constitutional perspective, that would depend entirely upon state laws. I don't think there would be any states that would allow that or grenades, or any other kind of non-firearm military weapon. But, again, registration and gun laws would vary from state to state and the Feds would have no say in it.

I personally believe automatic machine guns should be legal for people who have no felony offense against them and who can afford to complete and finish a basic competency course. The local police could have a list of everyone in their jurisdiction who owns one, maybe you could add a law that says you have to keep it chained up when not using it.

Phxarcher87's picture

ak-47

perfectly legal.....

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

Should indivuduals be allowed

Should indivuduals be allowed nuclear weapons? No. Should governments be allowed nuclear weapons? No.

But how does the government get the weapons while the individual cannot?

Force!

Please, let's end the forceful intrusion of our violent government.

Should governments be allowed nuclear weapons?

Yes.Nations without nuclear weapons are equivalent to an unarmed people surrounded by armed people .Nuclear weapons are the reason many countries have not been attacked.It is a deterant.Unfortunately it's a risky thing but like all weapons of defense,in the wrong hands they can be dangerous but without them there will be no peace.Though I do agree,we don't need to have thousands of nuclear weapons.

well our constitution says....

A right to bear arms as in for protecting ourselves. A nuke could'nt be set off without killing innocents and is a weapon of mass destruction.
So when you start getting weapons that are meant to cause mass damage and death it is no longer for protection, but to kill for the sake of killing.

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

No it doesn't.

It doesn't say "as in" anything. It says "shall not be infringed." People could have every weapon the government could. The people were the military. They did defend themselves.