Restrictions on the right to bear arms

I think we should be able to own tanks and nuclear warheads. Those are 'arms' after all.

Where do we draw the line?

 

I'm married to a nuclear engineer, so that's not outside the realm of possibility...

 

Some people would argue that your argument can be used backwards, that if no one had a gun, then no one would try anything, because they would just end up getting their ass kicked by 10 out of 35 people in the bank, as opposed to an 11 person shoot out in the bank.

Just playing devil's advocate.

I order to get a CCW or FID I have to first go to a class, get certififed, then apply, then get approved, or if I get denied appeal, then I have to wait 7 days before I can get any gun.

 

The Right to Bear Arms has always had restrictions, they just weren't always as civilized as they are now. For example - the founding fathers did not imagine that the right for ALL people to bear arms should include the likes of blacks, native Americans, and women. In short, it restricted the right to bear arms from those who needed them most - the oppressed.

 

I seriously hope you were joking.

Although it is disputed, pretty much everyone (pro-gun or not) agrees to the same line. Sure, there are the few out there who believe we have a duty to own large capacity, fully automatic weapons, but most are quite happy with their pistols, shotguns, and rifles (all semi-automatic at the most, mind you).

Also, pistols are about 99.99% of every day carry weapons. I know a lot of "gun people" and I've never come across anyone that carries a long gun. Those are either for hunting, targets, or home defense.

Just remember, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

 

a well armed populace is the greatest defense against tyranny. if you make it so no one can have guns, only the bad people will have guns.

 

I was so at the local gun store yesterday shopping for my gfs 21st birthday gift, she wants a pink pistol. Ive grown up hunting, my brother n pops have there ccw. So i signd me and the gf up for pistol for noobs class and a ccw class, hopefully on my 21st i can get my gun and ccw, and a few weeks later my lady can get her pink gun and ccw on her bday.


I use to do work at diffrent gun n knife shows across the country, and let me tell you that you can buy some crazy things with cash, lagit.

IF paperworks your thing you can get a destructive device licence, which means you can own anything from rpg's, to machineguns, to whatever you can think of. The Fbi, atf, state popo, country sheirf, local officers all also have a file 2 inches thick about you...

 

he'll be getting a semi-automatic civilian version of a "machine gun", unless he has whatever other licensing is necessary.

me too, then i would be able to shoot targets on my own property as opposed to the middle of nowhere.

dueling is legal in my state, and 13 others i believe.

 

Ha. Good luck getting a class 3 license. Seriously, it's hard enough to get a class 2, and those items are far less dangerous.

Then there's the cost of getting the tax stamp...

P.S.
Machine guns are class 2, and must be made before 1986 (May, I think). Also, expect to pay as much as a car for any class 2 (besides suppressors) or 3 item.

 

Well the Amendment probably refers to personal firearms. The heaviest thing back then were cannons and who the hell is going to carry an actual cannon around?

Automatics were not invented so the worst they had were the single shot .50 cal rifles.

As the times change so must the interpretation. So where is the line these days? The question is, what is practical to defense?

Lets start with assault rifles. Are they reasonable for defense? Survives of Katrina seem to think so, especially the business owners. Those who had these guns didnt get looted.

Now should full auto assault rifles be legal? My personal opinion is yes. Its only too easy to convert them any way. Besides, if you get into a situation where an assault rifle is needed, chances are you will need more than 1 shot.

Handguns and shotguns are perfect for home defense, but burglars will probably shit their pants if they see a decked out AR-15.

For nuclear weapons, thats only needed if the zombie outbreak overtakes a large city.

Tanks are useful, but impractical for the average citizen.

Im on the fence about RPGs and the like.

What else am I missing?

 

the fact that most muskets were of larger caliber than .50 - try .65.

.50 would've been a pistol caliber.

and the other fact that if i were breaking into a house and heard a 12g shell being jacked in, i would apologize and shut the door on my way out.

 

i do believe everyone should have to take some kind of class to carry a gun.

But everyone should have the right to own one.


I like semi-auto assault rifles more than full auto. maybe because i'm more accurate with them, and its cheaper on ammo. (also i can pull the trigger almost just as quick as most full autos anyways)

But I think as long as you live in a country setting you should be able to own either. I'll admit that there's no legit reason to own either except for target practice, but i don't care, i believe it's my right.

I do think owning firearms gets the gov more in check, them knowing we could take them over keeps them from doing whatever they want. Yeah the gov pretty much does whatever they want, but i think it would be a lot worse if they knew there was no way we could overthrow them.

 

ITs protected in the constitution for a purpose- because we fear the government and don't like their controll. WE have this protection because we want to be able to take back what is ours if necessary. It seems strange that people want to allow the governement to take away something that our country was founded upon.

And our violence with guns has more to do with our culture than anything else.... I can provide all sorts of evidence that guns do prevent and stop crime.

 

I loved this post, but I have one problem with it...

Why is a country setting needed to own a full auto weapon? Do rural citizens have a greater need to defend themselves?

Where I live (Milwaukee), there's multiple shootings/murders every single night, just like most large cities. I don't even live in a really bad part of the city, but students at my university get mugged on a nightly basis.

If anything, urban folk have a greater need for personal defense firepower than rural. (I'm not talking about defending livestock.)

 

I was just saying that because there's more places in the country to target practice. I don't think anyone should be defending themselves with an assault rifle. I find guns like that to be more for fun, I really don't think you would ever need one to defend yourself.

You could say, people in urban areas just have the guns for target practice also. But your right, there is more murders, robberies, or w/e in urban areas, so I think even if someone bought the gun for target practice there's a higher chance they will use it on someone.

I think pistols should be used for self defense, just because you shoot someone to defend yourself doesn't mean you have to shoot to kill. But with a full auto assault rifle, it would be kinda hard to shoot and not kill. Yeah you could still aim at their legs, but it would fuckin cut their legs off, lol.

But that's just my option.

 

No doubt.

My ex GF's dad is a chief of police. When she moved in with me, he gave us a 12ga pump shotty. I asked him if I should keep it cocked and locked. He says, "No, if someone is in your house and hears the ratchet as you chamber a round, they'll shit their pants and haul ass out."

He also told me to keep slugs in it and aim for center mass cause any hit is a kill shot.