Should we be able to?

[K_W]

Sure. And if you open carry it can be taken away from you.

Why take away liberty? Because something CAN happen?

Your firearms could be stolen tonight. We need to regulate it because of that.

Not what I meant.

A gang banger could steal my gun, rob a store, maybe kill someone with it, but if it was an RPG, he could takeout an entire rival gang in one shot, or if he missed, the school bus full of kids down the street.

My point is the more powerful the device the more responsibly it needs to be managed. If we should allow people to have powerful weapons, I do not believe it unreasonable for society to ensure the owner is responsible enough to have them, and capable of storing them in a way that they cannot accidentally or maliciously cause undue death and destruction.

This means that, for example, if shoulder fired guided missiles where to become legal, in order to have an SFGM you must also have an container to store it in that is highly theft resistant and capable of containing the blast should one somehow go off.

 

[9mmfan]

That would be soooo coool, towing a 155 MM Howitzer to work with my Contour.

 

[G_Stines]

What is the basis that anyone COULD own a nuclear weapon? How much does it cost? How much does it weigh?

LGM-118A "The Peacekeeper" was an expiremental ICBM under the MX (Missile eXperiment) Project that started in 1986, with the last of the ICBM being commissioned in 2005. The LGM was a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) that was capable of multiple warhead delivery from a single missile. The LGM was equipped with anywhere from 3-12 warheads per missile. Each missiles ranged from 20M (w/3 WHs) to 70M (w/12 WH). Given that was in the 80s-90s. So worst case scenario, you could obtain one for 150M. In the world, there are approx. 37,978,000 households in the world who qualify as US millionaires.

There were 1125 people in the world who had or were worth over 1B USD in 2008.
That means any one of them could liquidate assets and purchase an LGM missile. You have just set up 1125 people to compete for complete and total world domination through nuclear war threats and the eventual WW3. In which, us, the everyday citizens would have to fight before all dying from massive radiation or immediate radioation death through detonation.


Call me naive, call me stupid for letting it stay the way that it is, but Top Secret can stay Top Secret. I'd let the Gov't keep their secrets before I wish for the trilogy of:
WWI:Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, and the Plane;
WWII: Automatic Firearms, The Tank, and Nuclear Weapons;
WWIII: The Ego Maniacal Billionaire Nuclear Battle (Now with more fallout!!)

So, no thanks. This is one situation where my tinfoil hat is happy where it is.

Very well said.

Thank you, and thank you for the rep!

 

[Hayseed_40]

You mean ANYTHING from a 9mm M9 pistol to a full arsenal of nuclear warheads, jet fighters and tanks?
I voted NO.
I see enough idiots doing stupid things with guns, I cant imagine if anybody had access to all the military arsenal, including nuclear weapons.

Have to agree

 

[turnandshoot4]

Not what I meant.

A gang banger could steal my gun, rob a store, maybe kill someone with it, but if it was an RPG, he could takeout an entire rival gang in one shot, or if he missed, the school bus full of kids down the street.

My point is the more powerful the device the more responsibly it needs to be managed. If we should allow people to have powerful weapons, I do not believe it unreasonable for society to ensure the owner is responsible enough to have them, and capable of storing them in a way that they cannot accidentally or maliciously cause undue death and destruction.

This means that, for example, if shoulder fired guided missiles where to become legal, in order to have an SFGM you must also have an container to store it in that is highly theft resistant and capable of containing the blast should one somehow go off.

A gang banger could also steal your SUV and plow it into a crowd of people. They could steal your lawn mower and run over babies. They could also learn to mix fertilizer and plant a bomb to kill a rival gang member and blow up a school. I can play the hypotheticals all day. All of these are legal and likely FAR more deadly than one POS RPG.

Perhaps if people are allowed to have powerful words they should be tightly controlled as well?

That is how Chicago kept their people from defending themselves. It has to be locked and seperate. Totally stripped until it is taken to the range. Furthermore who decides what is "safe" for anyone? Perhaps it is a $2,000,000,000 shipping container. Now who can own anything? No one. With more restriction come less freedom. More freedom= more power for the people.

How do we know ANYONE is responsible enough to own/operate any firearms? We don't. We also don't know if anyone is responsible enough to breed, and yet they do. When do we stop saying, "I am responsible, but they aren't!"

The government is not responsible enough to let people who are responsible to have things and those who are not responsible to not have them. So by default, no one gets them. Thereby depriving me of liberty.

LGM-118A "The Peacekeeper" was an expiremental ICBM under the MX (Missile eXperiment) Project that started in 1986, with the last of the ICBM being commissioned in 2005. The LGM was a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) that was capable of multiple warhead delivery from a single missile. The LGM was equipped with anywhere from 3-12 warheads per missile. Each missiles ranged from 20M (w/3 WHs) to 70M (w/12 WH). Given that was in the 80s-90s. So worst case scenario, you could obtain one for 150M. In the world, there are approx. 37,978,000 households in the world who qualify as US millionaires.

There were 1125 people in the world who had or were worth over 1B USD in 2008.
That means any one of them could liquidate assets and purchase an LGM missile. You have just set up 1125 people to compete for complete and total world domination through nuclear war threats and the eventual WW3. In which, us, the everyday citizens would have to fight before all dying from massive radiation or immediate radioation death through detonation.


Call me naive, call me stupid for letting it stay the way that it is, but Top Secret can stay Top Secret. I'd let the Gov't keep their secrets before I wish for the trilogy of:
WWI:Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, and the Plane;
WWII: Automatic Firearms, The Tank, and Nuclear Weapons;
WWIII: The Ego Maniacal Billionaire Nuclear Battle (Now with more fallout!!)

So, no thanks. This is one situation where my tinfoil hat is happy where it is.

So who could do this? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? Why don't they? They have too much to lose. Do you really think that if Bill Gates wanted a nuke he couldn't get one? Really? What is the point of being a billionare if there is no one else to control? If money had no value? In a post nuclear war world money has no value. All of the power of the rich is gone then.

So explain to me again, why would the rich want to kill a bunch of people and ruin their "perfect" life?

Why try to control people? What is in it for you?

Your personal security is your job.

Again I don't believe in all of this restriction.
You can look, but you can't touch.
You can touch, but you can't taste.
You can taste, but you can't swallow.

Stay thirsty my friends.

BTW, I might be the only one commenting but the poll is still on my side.

 

[ryknoll3]

Then why do shortbarrel shotguns and shortbarrel rifles and silencers and destructive devices cost so much? Albeit not 10x as much but you get my point, they would be significantly more than what the .gov pays for them. Which is a buttload.

I don't know that much about the pricing of SBS's, because Indiana in all it's wisdom seems to think we're not responsible enough to own a shotgun with a 17" barrel, because 18" barrel shotguns are less dangerous.

As to SBR's, you're mostly incorrect. You can piece together an SBR for the same price as a regular AR (not including the tax stamp). If you want to talk factory complete SBR's, the reason they are more expensive is that if you notice, most of the factory SBR's that are available are the higher end stuff (LMT, BCM, Noveske, etc...). SBR's from those companies are NOT more expensive than their regular guns though.

As far as suppressor's go, the reason those are expensive is simply because the tax stamp almost always turns them into a lifetime purchase and the suppressor companies pour a lot into R&D to design new suppressors that made out of better and more durable materials, while trying to stay lightweight and get continually quieter. If you could buy a suppressor in a gun shop like you can a rifle, or even better, off the shelf at Cabelas with the rest of the accessories (which that's all a suppressor is), you would see prices MUCH lower. People wouldn't be as concerned with running the thing into the ground or having it be something that will last them MANY years if they could just go out and buy a new one. We're already at the point where you can get a quality suppressor (Huntertown Guardian) for $200. They could probably build them even cheaper with older technologies (less exotic metals, older baffle technology), but due to the 5 month wait and $200 tax stamp, no one would be interested in a cheap silencer that's going to wear out.

Also, the .gov buys in bulk, so anything we buy on an individual level is going to be more expensive than what they pay.

 

[smitty12b]

Ok, when a machine gun cost civilians $10,000 and up, what on earth do you think nukes would cost? What does the military spend on an M4? $600? lets make it easy and say $1k, and it costs us $10k. A nuke costs a couple million a pop right? Any one got $30-40 million? <Aybe some whacko out there does but those kind of people won't blow up the world, they make too much money of it.

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

Here's a place to shop for all your armor needs
Armor Page 1

 

[G_Stines]

A gang banger could also steal your SUV and plow it into a crowd of people. They could steal your lawn mower and run over babies. (I laughed so hard I cried right there.) They could also learn to mix fertilizer and plant a bomb to kill a rival gang member and blow up a school. I can play the hypotheticals all day. All of these are legal and likely FAR more deadly than one POS RPG. True, and they have done this, so now imagine how they would abuse an RPG, FA gun, and M203 if you could pick those up at Walmart like fertilizers and lawn mowers...

Perhaps if people are allowed to have powerful words they should be tightly controlled as well? Last I heard they were... something called the Patriot act. That and the fact that Big Brother listens and scans every internet search. I bet if you google bomb construction, assination attempts and the president's schedule enough, you could meet them in person. They distrust us as much as we distrust them.

That is how Chicago kept their people from defending themselves. It has to be locked and seperate. Totally stripped until it is taken to the range. Furthermore who decides what is "safe" for anyone? Perhaps it is a $2,000,000,000 shipping container. Now who can own anything? No one. With more restriction come less freedom. More freedom= more power for the people. Which I do agree with.

How do we know ANYONE is responsible enough to own/operate any firearms? We don't. We also don't know if anyone is responsible enough to breed, and yet they do. When do we stop saying, "I am responsible, but they aren't!" That will never happen. Humans are competitive by nature; they will and do constantly compare themselves and everyone they meet to themselves in every aspect of their life.

The government is not responsible enough to let people who are responsible to have things and those who are not responsible to not have them. So by default, no one gets them. Thereby depriving me of liberty.

True.

So who could do this? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? Why don't they? They have too much to lose. Do you really think that if Bill Gates wanted a nuke he couldn't get one? Really? What is the point of being a billionare if there is no one else to control? If money had no value? In a post nuclear war world money has no value. All of the power of the rich is gone then.

Yes, Yes. Probabaly because they are content with where they are. However, you get someone who has a set of ideals similair to Hitler, Mousilini, or Escobar even, and now you have a very large problem.

So explain to me again, why would the rich want to kill a bunch of people and ruin their "perfect" life?

Why try to control people? What is in it for you?

A.) That's a good question. Answers vary from a goal of personal achievement, psychological disorders, vanity, and a feeling of superiority and entitlement, amongst many many others.

Why have the Roman Empire, Tang China, the Mongol Empire, The Ottoman Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Empire and the British Empire all existed in the past? Because a leader possessed the resources to, and some feeling, possibly in the aforementioned statement that made them wish to do so.

Your personal security is your job.
Yes it is. But my house and its security vs ICBM still loses.

Again I don't believe in all of this restriction.
You can look, but you can't touch.
You can touch, but you can't taste.
You can taste, but you can't swallow.

I actually agree. But those are utopian ideals. In a perfect world there would be no restriction. But this isn't a perfect world, and there are restrictions, and I will admit over restrictions on certain things. No government entity will ever have complete freedom to information and privileges to the public.

Unfortunately, one bad apple can ruin the bushel, and the government figures that if if Person A is too stupid to know better, then so is B,C,D and so on. Also, you do have those rare instances where some people just kill people. Serial Murderers, Domestic Terrorists, ect. I would love to grab three buddies and take the Abrams out on the town, I really would, but it's more impractical than it is practical so why mess with the way it is. Alter and amend access? Absolutely. Abolish limitations? No way you could have it and keep the peace, or a semblance of. It's a sad fact.
Stay thirsty my friends.

BTW, I might be the only one commenting but the poll is still on my side.
Touche.

For the record: I love the idea of having more personal freedoms. I do. But I also recognize that there is a responsibility of the people to understand that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed in order to maintain the peace and the well being of the nation. Some people will take the inch, appreciate it, thank you graciously, and go about their merry way. Some people will take the inch and run with it, taking as much as they can before someone notices it, and they are the ones who set us back six inches. Sometimes.. The the line can be altered and pushed so far, and to me, it stops just before the WMDs, GI explosives, Military artillery and vehicles.

 

[Prometheus]

Some people will take the inch and run with it, taking as much as they can before someone notices it, and they are the ones who set us back six inches. Sometimes.. The the line can be altered and pushed so far, and to me, it stops just before the WMDs, GI explosives, Military artillery and vehicles.

There is the problem. You have a fundamentally skewed view of how our government was established.

We the People have the inch, the foot, the yard and even the fracking mile.

Your train of thought is that of a socialist or fascist. You believe that the government has "it" and gets to dole "it" out.

They don't.

We do.

The PEOPLE have all the power and it flows to government. Not from government. The PEOPLE ultimately draw the line.

You're a control freak. You use the same justifications as to why you don't want someone to own XYZ because it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's no different than Sara Brady who hates hi-cap magazines or an Uzi. It's pathetic.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Go read some of the founding fathers writings.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. -Thomas Jefferson.

TJ wrote the DOI. You really think a man who chooses his words that carefully doesn't mean what he says when he uses the word tempestuous?

You want to be slave? Fine, don't force the rest of us into the chains you so happily clamor for.



As an aside, as Turnandshoot points out, all this nuke talk is asinine. Crazy Iranian Amadidajad(sp) has the money to buy a nuke but can't. It's not like companies are going to be selling them even if it was legal for a US Citizen to own one.

 

[G_Stines]

The nuke stuff is crazy talk, I was just playing out the hypothetical that someone proposed.

I know how our government was established. I also know that we the people USED TO "have the inch the yard and the fracking mile." I admit it. You say my train of thought is "that of a socialist or fascist. You believe that the government has "it" and gets to dole "it" out." Or am I simply the realist who can see the government for what it currently is?

The reason I say that is I am sure that right now, they do and that's the issue. You took me out of context and completely perverted the nature of the statement. The original "inch" that I was referring to is when the citizen wins and argument with the government for personal liberty, and then someone who could benefit from it, in light of their new found freedom, does something to ruin it. I admit that I should have clarified it better, but I am fallible and that was my intended message. Then the government returns to its original way with the assumption that the people need the rules and sometimes with even tighter restrictions. It was very much a "This is why we can't have nice things," statement. There are always people who impact our freedoms with their stupidity and irresponsibility. The fact that Sudafed is regulated as compared to 2 or 3 years ago is a prime example. Someone, somewhere figured out that you can make meth out of it, and the government started to regulate it. You now have to sign a paper, and present ID, and are limited to x amount per month.


"The PEOPLE have all the power and it flows to government. Not from government. The PEOPLE ultimately draw the line."

But right now, they don't draw the line. When the people stop controlling the flow, they allow the government to take hold. Right now, in this day and age, the government does. The current government is a joke. Check's and balances has lost its third arm and stricly exists between what the US Congress passes and the USSC throws out when an issue is had with the law that the Congress passes and the Constitution trumps.. The people, through their indiscretion and fear, have given the government the power to the point that unless you are in the upper tiers and touching elite status, you are nothing but that gets stuck on their shoes when they walk on you. And me. And everyone else in this country. The elections are a joke, this country is barely hanging on to that status of Republic that it once was.

I pay attention to politics, and I see people voting, and still the government rots. My only conclusion is that the people want it to die, or that the disease limbs cannot be cut from the tree, because at this point the tree its self is diseased.

"It cannot take decades to resurrect, we must act immediately with purpose and enthusiasm to rebuild. " Alan Autry


In some semblance of the word, yes, I am a control freak. But it is solely based upon myself. I want to be control of myself at all times. Yup, that makes me a control freak. Guess what... So are you! Your pursuit for personal freedom means that you want to be able to control yourself, so.. you are a control freak too.. Funny how that works out? Don't feel bad, everyone is a control freak. You act a certain way because you must. You may argue that you are capable of giving up your own self control, and in which case I encourage you to consider who is the slave clamoring for the chains. So to be in control, it is completely acceptable as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another. I don't believe that anyone has been deprived because of my self control. If they have, I offer my personal and formal apology in writing here and now.

By the way I am not ashamed, of anything. I haven't been since I was a child.. Shame is guilt, guilt is an obstacle which prevents one from progression. I learn from my mistakes and I move on, anything less is a waste. I know exactly who Thomas Jefferson is, and the rest of the Committee of Five, and that Jefferson did indeed draft it, despite that he felt John Adams should write it and committee agreed. After much discussion, John Adams told the committee that Jefferson should construct it and that Adams personally would also consult with Jefferson over its writing. He and Jefferson wrote that it happened so in their personal accounts. I have read it, and just so you know, if you have respect for someone, you call them by their name or their title, and to my knowledge, while apparently limited in your opinion, Mr. Jefferson never went by "TJ." Although, if you have a source I would be more interested to read it.

I know exactly what he means by tempestous. It is a synonym for a storm and its constant changes and challenges, much like the journey of life..

I say the following with no disrespect to any person of any faith. It is simply a view from a neutral, logical standpoint:

Just so you know, if you believe in any sort of religion in which you are dedicated and devout to, you are a slave. You are "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence." That person being a whatever higher power you believe in. If you have ever encouraged anyone to pursue a life involving a faith, you have encouraged them to live a life in shackles.

I very much enjoyed this chat. If you have incurred any kind of affront or discourtesy, I do much apologize. I hope that you have a pleasant evening, and or day, depending on when you get around to this post.

Also, although I don't know your exact location, if I am ever in that area of the state, would you mind if I sent you a PM? Maybe grab lunch? I would be most interested in a political discussion with you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your personal security is your job.

Kinda hard to take responsibility for personal security, when a guy 2 states over is lobbing missiles at you. (unless you can afford a Patriot missile battery)

I voted no, unless the poll clarifies WMD, rocket-propelled, and other destructive type weapons

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I didn't vote. If there was an explain option, I would have picked that one.
Small arms, Long arms, ect. Sure. Full auto and select fire? You bet, but regulated. WAY to many idiots out there. That comes at the cost of bureaucracy, but it may be the necessary lesser of two evils. Tanks? No. Choppers? No. Military grade explosives? I'm actually gonna go with no. Kinda on the fence, but no one outside of a combat zone really needs access to claymores, C4, or frag grenades.

In regards to the "larger" items, if someone can buy them, someone has to sell them. Even if that someone is Uncle Sam himself, that means that civilians will have access to the military compounds and such that have the equipment available. It would only be a matter of time before the BGs find a way to get their hands on it. Whether it be acquiring enough people and full autos, and body armor to take on a small base or place of sale. Marvin Heemeyer managed to plow through that town in Colorado in '04 after spending a year and a half modifying a bulldozer with armor plating... Imagine if he had a 105mm on top of that and it was instead piloted by someone who was intent on killing people.

Yeah sure, citizens could rise up to defend their town, but most aren't going to have the resources. The larger items for sale, would only benefit the elitists in my opinion.

Honestly, I can't find that word anywhere in the 2a. Since most of the writings of our nations founding fathers seem to point in the direction of protection and defense from tyranny in government (I realize of course that was only because of all they had just gone through and maybe they were a bit sensitive and near sighted into the matter...) I think the explosives and even rocket propelled stuff should be fine.

 

[whoismunky]

I'm pretty sure the second amendment just says "arms," and not "guns." If BGs want explosives, they'll get explosives. Even with the money we have as American civilians we're currently outgunned by the ragged and sandy Taliban fighter with RPG's, select fire AK's, etc...not a comforting thought to me. As far as nukes go, I really see both sides of the argument. I have been thinking into this one for a long time and it always comes down to choosing between two evils -_- I vote yes with the possible exception of nuclear devices. I do believe in the necessity for people to be equally armed against government, however I can't imagine an instance where said govt would nuke its own cities in a revolution.

 

[hookedonjeep]

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

Amen brother! Let the market determine ownership! It is no different than with vehicles..... I WANT a H1 decked out with all sorts of toys; but I can only AFFORD a Dodge truck. I could purchase my H1, if I had the necessary funding; since there is no BAN on me owning one. Since the price required for ownership is beyond my means at this time, I will simply have to continue to dream.....
It should be the same for weapons. Freedom to own whatever I want, given that I can afford it. That being said, I'll take 3 RPG's, a half-dozen AK's, and a bag of Twizzlers to go, please! (Dreaming of the day that ATF is a convenience store.....)

 

[yotewacker]

I voted No. There are certain things we need to keep from the enemy. If anyone in the US is allowed to own anything. Then our enemy would have everything within 24 hours at the most. Even if you put a high tax on it like class 3 items. This would not even slow them down.

 

[ocsdor]

I say let's start with military rifles and work our way up from there.

 

[steve666]

I selected no, but only because I don't want my neighbors stockpiling nukes.

 

[Westside]

As some who works with weapons systems for the military, I voted yes!

let's be realistic with this debate. The VAST majority of people buy weapons with the intent to use them for recreation. INGO just had NFA day with large caliber automatic weapons, suppressors, SBR's, and etc.... for arguments sake I am only going to discuss legal options. Criminals don't obey the law so laws don't matter.

1) You can already with proper licensing buy large quantities of explosives, I am currently in the process of obtaining this license as it relates to my job.

2) with proper licensing you can build any type of weapon you want.

3) with proper licensing you you can poses radioactive material.

4) with proper licensing you can own, build, and launch both guided and unguided rockets and missiles.

In conclusion, people have no problem owning machine guns, large caliber rifles, artillery etc. Where you run into the disagreements is when you get to explosives and Nuclear weapon systems, so lets look at that.

All Radioactive material is subject to the NRC (nuclear regulatory committee) so anyone want to possess a Nuclear weapon must meat ALL of the storage, transportation, and disposal requirements already on the books for radioactive material. And you don't see people with a rod of uranium now do you. So, this will all but eliminate private ownership of nuclear weapons.

As I have already said with proper licensing you can already own rockets and missiles with/without explosive heads so now it is just a matter of scale. Where do you draw the line?

 

[MtnBiker6510]

I see a sporting purpose for tactical nukes for those hunters on vacation in the bahamas when squirrel season starts.

 

[G_Stines]

Also.... In a straight yes or no format, yes violates the constitution. It gives you access to military personel files. That includes test scores, aptitude tests, address, family, address of NoK, among other things of our past and present soldiers. They're privacy is just as important as yours. I doubt they want people to be able to buy their personal information.

Hey... You said ANYTHING the military had access to. I'm just pointing out a point that has been over looked.