Which gun laws are necessary?

[DZJ 0]

The common theme of gun discussion around here seems to be arguments for/against new laws, generally tightening controls on firearms. I was wondering, to approach the question from the other end, what laws both sides would agree are right and necessary. A sort of 'lowest common denominator', if you will.

[Glitch 0]

Gun Control is necessary: What's the point of owning a gun if you can't hit your target?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[billvon 3,118]

Any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to own/use a gun here in the US. Laws that help that happen are good. Laws that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally disturbed are also good. That's my criteria. (Which makes me equally hated by both the anti-gun folks and the pro-gunners, so I must be doing something right!)

[beowulf 1]

I can agree with you on that.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to own/use a gun here in the US. Laws that help that happen are good. Laws that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally disturbed are also good. That's my criteria. (Which makes me equally hated by both the anti-gun folks and the pro-gunners, so I must be doing something right!)

Awwww!! Bill.. Why did go and do that. Take all the fun out of good old fashion gun debate by going and posting a perfectly reasonable answer.

No opportunity to repost cheesy Bumper stickers.. No chances at Lib/Con bashing.. Basically no fun at all.

BTW.. I happen to agree with you, If that wont make you rethink your position.. Nothing will.

[quade 4]

Quote

Any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to own/use a gun here in the US. Laws that help that happen are good. Laws that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally disturbed are also good. That's my criteria. (Which makes me equally hated by both the anti-gun folks and the pro-gunners, so I must be doing something right!)

How do you feel about guns over a certain caliber or capacity? What about projectiles of certain designs such as armor piercing rounds?

In the hands of "any sane, law-abiding adult" they probably are mostly safe (if somewhat pointless other than for novelty), but their wider availablity makes them FAR more dangerous in the "hands of criminals or the mentally disturbed".

Where do you draw the line there?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How do you feel about guns over a certain caliber or capacity? What about projectiles of certain designs such as armor piercing rounds?

Capacity is meaningless, as recently proven. You can change magazines in less than a second.

Calibers tend to be self limiting by weight and recoil. If capacity concerns you, the 9mm far worse than larger rounds.

Armor piercing is one of those intentionally misleading descriptors, much like calling glocks "plastic guns" designed to get past airport security. Every deer gun uses "armor piercing" rounds.

So where to draw lines, if we cleaned the slate of current laws? Probably focus it on the propensity for collateral damage. Grenades and claymores, phosorous rounds are examples of weapons that may be more disruptive than positive. I don't worry about machine gun mayhem - few can fire more than a 3 round burst and still have any accuracy - but then you have potential for collateral damage again.

As for qualifications, there's nothing wrong with the Insta Check system. Felons shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons from a gun store. I'd toss the waiting periods, and the blanket prohibitions on anyone with restraining orders. (they are routinely assigned on any domestic dispute without any justification)

I don't have a firm view yet on how to handle privacy versus public good on the matter of mental health history. I'm more interested in giving people options when it happens.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How do you feel about guns over a certain caliber or capacity? What about projectiles of certain designs such as armor piercing rounds?

The bigger and the more.... the better.... It really pisses me off that I cant have a fully functional tank if I want one.. just think of how much more fun traffic would be down there If I could drive one of those to work.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

How do you feel about guns over a certain caliber or capacity? What about projectiles of certain designs such as armor piercing rounds?

The bigger and the more.... the better.... It really pisses me off that I cant have a fully functional tank if I want one.. just think of how much more fun traffic would be down there If I could drive one of those to work.

Well, you wouldn't have to worry much about the traffic jams... up and over!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Or in LA Traffic if some guy flips you off and you return the favor..... just let him try to pull his inadequate little pea shooter

[billvon 3,118]

>How do you feel about guns over a certain caliber or capacity?

I'd say that the second amendment pretty clearly refers to weapons that citizens, not military personnel, carry. So a .50cal Desert Eagle would qualify as a 'protected' weapon, but a 105mm howitzer would not. (That's not to say that 105mm howitzers should be illegal - but they are not covered under the protections of the second amendment.)

>Where do you draw the line there?

Right where you drew it. Between sane, law abiding adults and criminals/mentally disturbed people. The increased availability of weapons to criminals is indeed a problem, and I would support laws that made it more difficult for criminals to acquire, hide, disguise and/or use such weapons - provided those laws did not unduly interfere with the right of law-abiding people to use them.

[quade 4]

Quote

I'd say that the second amendment pretty clearly refers to weapons that citizens, not military personnel, carry.

I'd say that's up for debate . . . and has been for quite awhile.

If you exclude weapons that "military personnel, carry" you'd have to exclude quite a few hand guns that I believe are actually quite acceptable, so I personally don't see that as being the standard of what is or is not acceptable.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,118]

>you'd have to exclude quite a few hand guns . . .

Well, "hand guns" are pretty much by definition carryable by your average citizen. I'm referring to military weapons that are not usable by your typical citizen without training/support and cannot generally be carried by one person.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I'm referring to military weapons that are not usable by your typical citizen without training/support and cannot generally be carried by one person.

That's an arbitrary definition that could easily go astray. I imagine the military might have all sorts of science fiction weapons that pass your test. If those don't exist now, we can assume they'll exist in the future.

Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because it was lightweight and had a simple user interface?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm referring to military weapons that are not usable by your typical citizen without training/support and cannot generally be carried by one person.

That's an arbitrary definition that could easily go astray. I imagine the military might have all sorts of science fiction weapons that pass your test. If those don't exist now, we can assume they'll exist in the future.

Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because it was lightweight and had a simple user interface?

If that is the current infantry weapon at the time - why not?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

If that is the current infantry weapon at the time - why not?

Hey.. I want my freakin TANK dammit. Screw that Infantry crap man......

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because it was lightweight and had a simple user interface?

If that is the current infantry weapon at the time - why not?

[billvon 3,118]

>Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon
>that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because
>it was lightweight and had a simple user interface?

(sigh)

No, nor would I want to allow civilians to carry vials of anthrax just because they fit in their hands, nor do I think that water pistols full of Sarin should be legalized.

Sorry to have answered. You may return to bashing each other over the heads.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because it was lightweight and had a simple user interface?

If that is the current infantry weapon at the time - why not?

Oh. This interests me. I'm all for carrying pistols, but the question starts to confuse me when the weapon becomes more powerful. Should we accept civilians carrying laser beams that can kill a roomful of people simultaneously? How about one that could destroy an entire sports arena with 50k people in a flash?

What if handheld doomsday devices were someday possible? Should everyday average folk be able to buy and carry a device which would blow up the planet?

This is a big exaggeration I suppose. But approximately where would people draw the line? Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a poll...

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Sorry to have answered. You may return to bashing each other over the heads.

Wow. You're famous for persevering against people who continually and stubbornly play nonstop dirty debating tricks against you while ignoring everything you're actually trying to communicate.

Then I ask you one clarifying question based on my true guess at what you really meant and you throw your hands in the air.

Having a bad day?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Further, this directly speaks to weapons that currently exist today that the writers of the Second Amendment could not have possibly imagined.

I've heard this "current infantry weapon" argument before and I just don't think it holds water.

Is the First Amendment only applicable to quill pens and hand presses? I don't believe so, and I doubt that you do, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The increased availability of weapons to criminals is indeed a problem...

Correction: Guns are not more available than ever - they are less available. Theoretically. There have been ever-increasing gun-control laws for decades. It used to be you could buy firearms at common hardware stores, no questions asked. Now, every single purchase at a gun store has to be personally approved by the FBI.

Furthermore, violent crime and gun crime decreased for about 15 years straight, to a point not seen since the 1960's.

So, there is neither increasing availability, nor any trend of increasing crime.

The problem remains what it has always been: criminals.
It's not about the guns.

[crotalus01 0]

Personally I believe that even military-spec weapons should be open to the law-abiding public. The entire point of the second ammendment was to have an armed populace capable of overthrowing a repressive government.
Add to the fact that I served in the Army, and it is pretty well proven that you can do MORE damage more accurately with a semi-auto than a full auto simply due to the tendancy to "sweep" with full auto vs AIM with a semi. A big reason why the military went to the M16A2 with the salvo (3 round) burst as an option.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd say that the second amendment pretty clearly refers to weapons that citizens, not military personnel, carry.

I'd say that's up for debate . . . and has been for quite awhile.

If you exclude weapons that "military personnel, carry" you'd have to exclude quite a few hand guns that I believe are actually quite acceptable, so I personally don't see that as being the standard of what is or is not acceptable.

It seems that the most rational answer is the one also supported by the SCUS in the Miller decision.

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

What the court said here is that weapons that are not use din the military are not constitutionally protected. That's right, folks, guns in use in the military specifically ARE protected.

So if I understand Bill correctly, he and I agree here that weapons in sue by common infantry today are exactly what the second amendment protects, and exactly where the line should be drawn.

This does not include howitzers and crew served weapons, or tanks, TOW guns, and the like. This DOES include things like sub- and light-machine guns, M16A2s and M4s, as well as basically every handgunfrom 9mm to .45 cal.

Of course I'm not saying everything not listed as ok by the second should be banned, I'm just saying tha anything not listed above is probably not constitutionally protected.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd say that the second amendment pretty clearly refers to weapons that citizens, not military personnel, carry.

I'd say that's up for debate . . . and has been for quite awhile.

If you exclude weapons that "military personnel, carry" you'd have to exclude quite a few hand guns that I believe are actually quite acceptable, so I personally don't see that as being the standard of what is or is not acceptable.

It seems that the most rational answer is the one also supported by the SCUS in the Miller decision.

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

What the court said here is that weapons that are not use din the military are not constitutionally protected. That's right, folks, guns in use in the military specifically ARE protected.

So if I understand Bill correctly, he and I agree here that weapons in sue by common infantry today are exactly what the second amendment protects, and exactly where the line should be drawn.

This does not include howitzers and crew served weapons, or tanks, TOW guns, and the like. This DOES include things like sub- and light-machine guns, M16A2s and M4s, as well as basically every handgunfrom 9mm to .45 cal.

Of course I'm not saying everything not listed as ok by the second should be banned, I'm just saying tha anything not listed above is probably not constitutionally protected.

I've always wanted a bazooka.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.