In general, what kind of gun law do we want?

[Mass-diver]

I'm fine with an age limit (18). Can't think of any other gun law I would support.

Obviously nuclear bombs, poison gas, and mines aren't firearms - so that's a whole different discussion.

 

[exo]

I'm fine with an age limit (18). Can't think of any other gun law I would support.

To purchase, or possess? What about all those stories of kids who grabbed a gun and defended themselves or their siblings from home invaders? Would you propose they not be able to defend themselves with a firearm?

Obviously nuclear bombs, poison gas, and mines aren't firearms - so that's a whole different discussion.

It's different, but it's also the same. The point of the 2A is to ensure the people have arms parity with the government.

 

[Mass-diver]

To purchase, or possess? What about all those stories of kids who grabbed a gun and defended themselves or their siblings from home invaders? Would you propose they not be able to defend themselves with a firearm?

It's different, but it's also the same. The point of the 2A is to ensure the people have arms parity with the government.

Purchase and carry in public. In terms of in the home - it's the parent's choice as to what access they want to give their children. I had my first rifle at 7, which I kept in my bedroom.

Rifles are enough to keep any government in check, IMHO. But, I don't think private ownership of grenades, C4, or RPGs is outrageous.

 

[Squire]

Purchase and carry in public. In terms of in the home - it's the parent's choice as to what access they want to give their children. I had my first rifle at 7, which I kept in my bedroom.

Rifles are enough to keep any government in check, IMHO. But, I don't think private ownership of grenades, C4, or RPGs is outrageous.

If I could afford a nuclear weapon, had a place in Montana to keep it, and it was legal for someone to sell it to me, I'd buy one.

 

[Jason Flare]

If I could afford a nuclear weapon, had a place in Montana to keep it, and it was legal for someone to sell it to me, I'd buy one.

I want one too. It's not as if a whole bunch of other people don't have them..

 

[browncoat]

I'm fine with an age limit (18). Can't think of any other gun law I would support.

Obviously nuclear bombs, poison gas, and mines aren't firearms - so that's a whole different discussion.

I side with the supreme court of Georgia, which ruled in 1837 that the right to bear arms extends to every man, woman, and child.

 

[M60]

If I could afford a nuclear weapon, had a place in Montana to keep it, and it was legal for someone to sell it to me, I'd buy one.

Holy crap! You certainly see both ends of a spectrum and everything in between on NES.

 

[Squire]

Holy crap! You certainly see both ends of a spectrum and everything in between on NES.

As long as Government's have them, citizen's should be allowed to have them.

 

[weekendracer]

No it is quite simple actually.

None.

Use a gun in a violent crime, gone. It's a gun law.

 

[Volkl78]

me no understand

 

[widnerkj]

As long as Government's have them, citizen's should be allowed to have them.

THIS!!!!

 

[M60]

As long as Government's have them, citizen's should be allowed to have them.

Ok, but what would you do with it and how would you insure the safety of NES members and their families? Then you gotta deal with big brothers safety inspections and other crappy harassment the same way the nuclear power plants do and lots more since "you have a freaking nuke".

 

[Len-2A Training]

For MA the answer is simple.

"Delete MGL C. 140 S. 121 thru 131P; MGL C. 131 S. 63, S. 65, S. 66, S. 67, S. 70"

 

[Squire]

Ok, but what would you do with it and how would you insure the safety of NES members and their families? Then you gotta deal with big brothers safety inspections and other crappy harassment the same way the nuclear power plants do and lots more since "you have a freaking nuke".

I trust my own competence and judgement far, far more than any other individual and certainly more than the Government. I would have it just in case the Government failed and I needed it to defend against foreign invaders, or worse, the Government stopped working for it's citizens in general and in the interest of a few power mongering tyrants.

I don't think there should be safety inspections for power plants, or my hypothetical nuclear weapon. Do you think "big brother" should be able to come into your home and inspect your gun safe or your firearms for safety? I sure hope not, but rest assured, that's the next kind of law that vetted, legal gun owners are going to have to contend with as a "compromise" to total confiscation.

Which is why the only answer to the OPs question is "None", because any other answer acknowledges willingness to compromise which will be used against you until you have surrendered your Constitutionally guaranteed firearms.

 

[milktree]

As long as Government's have them, citizen's should be allowed to have them.

When you say "allow to have", do you mean "completely unregulated"?

I see no problem in principle with my neighbor having a nuclear reactor, except that if someone ****s up a nuclear reactor it doesn't just kill him, and his neighbors, and the city he lives in; it does serious damage to millions of people; even if you live in the middle of 100 square miles of your own land.

So, as long as the regulations aren't, "you can't have one, under any circumstances", regulations on ownership/use of of something aren't *completely* unreasonable.

I don't want my neighbor (my actual neighbor, who maybe shouldn't have a car) to have a nuclear bomb because the risks to *everyone* if something goes wrong are staggeringly high. But if Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark wants to run a nuclear reactor to power his lair, and he can (and does) afford to do it safely, that's fine.

For some things (handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc) anything more than the barest minimum of regulation is absurd.

For other things (nuclear bombs) regulation makes a lot of sense.

Before anyone goes all stupid on me, "regulation" means, "any individual or organization, private or public, who wants to have and/or operate a [something like a nuclear bomb or reactor] must comply with safety and operational regulations set forth by [some organization]."

So, anyone can have a nuclear sub, so long as they operate by the same rules as the Navy does.

 

[OhNoNotaGun]

Which, if you think about it, is one of the scariest realities of the time we live in: That a GUN OWNER, any gun owner, is willing to consider giving up ANY right, especially after what we've seen under the tyrant scumbag in the White House, and especially after what we've seen here in Massachusetts over the course of the last 20-plus years of liberal pukes trying to advance their pansy-ass agenda on legal, LAW ABIDING US citizens.

The fact that anyone joins this forum under the guise of being a "gun owner", and proceeds to ask the rest of us "Excuse me, guys and gals, but how much more will you accept? How much more KY can we apply to your already scorched 2nd Amendment rectum?"..

Tha fact that someone like the OP actually joins this forum, and then asks (apparently) in sincerity "How much more shredding of the basic rights of your land are you and your fellow bitter-clingers willing to ACCEPT??" is probably, if you really REALLY stop and think about it, proof that the 2nd Amendment truly is doomed. Hopefully not in MY lifetime, and I pray not in my kids' either, but I honestly believe my grandchildren are going to be defenseless, just the way all the sheep at Starbucks and all the other pansy Anti's want us to be. The country is f*cking doomed if a gun owner actually thinks, feels and believes what the OP thinks and believes. Jesus, I can't believe some of the stuff I hear coming from some peoples mouths. And a from GUN OWNERS' mouth?

Mother of God, save the USA.
Please.

I really don't think he meant any harm.

Who was the batshit crazy that shot up the Virginia Tech campus...killing I forget how many.

That dude was diagnosed as batshit, yet he still legally bought his Glock.

How crazy is that?

If we don't pitch in to help stop that bullshit, we are cutting our own throats, and if we actively INHIBIT efforts to stop that bullshit the blowback will be nasty.

Seung Hui-Cho. It's a concern for me, too, but I don't see any way to reasonably stop people like that until the mental health care system changes to make it easier for people who need care to get it.

Diagnosed as batshit means the same to me as "found guilty of future crimes", (snip).

Interesting way to look at things. I don't believe mental screening and owning a firearm are always diametrically opposed. I can tell you - there are people living out there who absolutely, positively should not be anywhere near a gun. I'm not saying ban guns, but if we can prevent them from acquiring them somehow (Constitutionally), I'm all for it.

I know from experience how crazy and illogical (or completely lacking in logic) people can get. And I don't mean on discussion forums like this - I mean real life monsters.

You are intelligent and reasonable. Some people simply do not have a healthy reasoning facility with which to function. They lack this and use rationalization rather than rationale to justify their warped acts of aggression.

These are the types that go out on rampages. I do not know the best way to stop them, but I know they absolutely should never be allowed near firearms, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from happening.

I realize it's impossible to stop all of it from happening all the time. But to throw our hands up and say "Why bother" would be tragic in itself.

If I could afford a nuclear weapon, had a place in Montana to keep it, and it was legal for someone to sell it to me, I'd buy one.

As long as Government's have them, citizen's should be allowed to have them.

You'd really want to own a nuke? What for? What tactical advantage could you think to gain from having one? I can see the scenario playing out:

*house owner hears thud in the night*

"Come out and show yourself, or I'll... I'll blow up Helena...?!"

Then you'd have Nuke Shops, where anyone could show their ID and pick up Little Big Boy for a weekend of... uh... radiation-induced funnery?

Wait, what??

Sorry, I just don't see how owning a nuke could benefit you or anyone, other than for a light show that would make certain areas uninhabitable for decades.

Putting firearms and nukes on par with one another is like thinking candles and rocket engines are both effective means to start a campfire. Nothing to be gained from owning a nuke, unless you are an anarchist who wants to destroy the government, I guess.

Notwithstanding, it might be "fun" to own one, in some weird, demented way, though.

 

[mbullism]

20 friggin pages and I keep coming back to the insanity of the notion that if I cut my LTC in half I'm suddenly dangerous because I'm unlicensed and unregulated, and the fact that I AM a law abiding citizen compells me to comply with the existing laws no matter how useless or fubar. I operate within this paradigm while all the while there are people out there who are dangerous to begin with that operate without the same burdens.

The answer is none. It's what the criminals have when they ignore them and mean to do me harm, it should be good enough for me when I determine to defend myself.

 

[Glock1911]

Hell, ya, If the navy have nuclear bombs, I should have one too. If I could afford it, I'll do what I want. Someday, I'll get tired of this bs, I'll activate it and bring all you motherfkers down with me.

 

[M60]

I trust my own competence and judgement far, far more than any other individual and certainly more than the Government. I would have it just in case the Government failed and I needed it to defend against foreign invaders, or worse, the Government stopped working for it's citizens in general and in the interest of a few power mongering tyrants.

I don't think there should be safety inspections for power plants, or my hypothetical nuclear weapon. Do you think "big brother" should be able to come into your home and inspect your gun safe or your firearms for safety? I sure hope not, but rest assured, that's the next kind of law that vetted, legal gun owners are going to have to contend with as a "compromise" to total confiscation.

Which is why the only answer to the OPs question is "None", because any other answer acknowledges willingness to compromise which will be used against you until you have surrendered your Constitutionally guaranteed firearms.

I doubt that anyone here on NES thinks you should have a nuclear bomb because "you " trust your own competence and judgment. Your confidence in yourself will never make you qualified to own a nuke. The idea of it is completely absurd. You have a LTC, have a gun with my blessing but my friend, you aint getting no nuke if I have anything to say about it.

 

[Ultimate Shield]

This thread is going Full Retard fast...

IMO the 2A should only apply to commonly held arms that soldiers have general access to. (arms meaning guns and only guns) There should be sensible laws in place that, should one be deemed unsuitable through due process, then that is that. Locke them up or put them in a nut house till they are deemed otherwise. Certainly a much more complicated issue, and as I said earlier our justice system needs an enema, but that is the rough gist of it.
RPG's? Nukes? are you ****ing kidding me?!?! Some of you guys seriously need to take another look at what you're saying as it's getting legitimately concerning.

 

[Quiet]

If the .gov keeps arming up the local and State police with MRAPs, Bearcats other armored vehicles then RPGs for the citizenry seems reasonable to me.

Please recall (part of) the reasoning behind 2A.

 

[white feather]

This thread is going Full Retard fast...

IMO the 2A should only apply to commonly held arms that soldiers have general access to. (arms meaning guns and only guns) There should be sensible laws in place that, should one be deemed unsuitable through due process, then that is that. Locke them up or put them in a nut house till they are deemed otherwise. Certainly a much more complicated issue, and as I said earlier our justice system needs an enema, but that is the rough gist of it.
RPG's? Nukes? are you ****ing kidding me?!?! Some of you guys seriously need to take another look at what you're saying as it's getting legitimately concerning.

Yep,started with the first post and continues on the 201st..
"sensible laws"
"deemed unsuitable"
You forgot "for the children" [sad2]

 

[Ultimate Shield]

Yep,started with the first post and continues on the 200th..
"sensible laws"
"deemed unsuitable"
You forgot "for the children" [sad2]

You are purposfully taking what I've said out of context, and are applying the general liberal definitions to them. See my previous post for slightly clearer meaning. Especially the part where we tout the torch after Sandy Hook that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue, only to then do everything in our power to prevent mental health reform while offering no alternative options in return.
When I say "sensable laws" and "deemed unsuitable through due process" I'm talking about addressing the issues of the Adam Lanzas/James Holms/Charles Whitmans/Andrew Kehoe's/ etc... in our societies. We cant pretend they don't exist, because they do, and always will. Same goes for the repeat offenders that we constantly see recycled through our justice system. Some of them simply cant be reconditioned to function in society without actively harming others, and THOSE are the people that we need to address.

 

[Lowbird]

Someday, I'll get tired of this bs, I'll activate it and bring all you motherfkers down with me.

^ THIS is why we can't have nice things.

This thread is going Full Retard fast...

IMO the 2A should only apply to commonly held arms that soldiers have general access to. (arms meaning guns and only guns) There should be sensible laws in place that, should one be deemed unsuitable through due process, then that is that. Locke them up or put them in a nut house till they are deemed otherwise. Certainly a much more complicated issue, and as I said earlier our justice system needs an enema, but that is the rough gist of it.
RPG's? Nukes? are you ****ing kidding me?!?! Some of you guys seriously need to take another look at what you're saying as it's getting legitimately concerning.

Again. Who desides what is "sensible"?

My humble opinion is two fold. There should be no law. We have the amendment as written. People need to get over it and protect themselves how they see fit. If they feel the need for a firearm. That is their choice. Life is about choice and risk.

Most military grade arms are just out of reach of the common man. Just based on dollars. So why the hell shouldn't some rich guy be able to buy whatever he wants? (Gov. does)
Be it a full auto small arms. Or they buy a new or decommissioned aircraft carrier.

Having said that. I will finish with this. If some guy in a cave can possess an RPG, full auto goodies, etc. That our ****ing Gov. "trusted" him with. Why the **** can't you or I have them?

 

[Ultimate Shield]

Again. Who desides what is "sensible"?

My humble opinion is two fold. There should be no law. We have the amendment as written. People need to get over it and protect themselves how they see fit. If they feel the need for a firearm. That is their choice. Life is about choice and risk.

Most military grade arms are just out of reach of the common man. Just based on dollars. So why the hell shouldn't some rich guy be able to buy whatever he wants? (Gov. does)
Be it a full auto small arms. Or they buy a new or decommissioned aircraft carrier.

This honestly is a 50/50 issue with me as the freedom loving libertarian in me wants to fully agree with you on the idea of absolute personal freedom. Yet the realist in me who sees the way things are going in this country also wants to address the real problems we are seeing all while some how preserving that beautiful concept of freedom.
Let me further clarify. I am in full agreement with you that the average citizen should, under the context of the 2a, be able to personally own FA goodness and what not. Said laws are against such are bullshit IMHO, as they are blatant pre-crime that doesn't actually solve a problem. But at the same time do you really want to start seeing street gangs using mother ****ing RPG's in drive-byes and the like? To say we want nothing, and that there will be 0 negotiations on the matter, is to shut ourselves out of the conversation entirely leaving only those who we are in utter disagreement with to deem what is "sensible", and that is how heinous laws like we have here in MA, and are seeing in NY and CT come about.

Also, the only reason that our lovey .gov ships said weapons around to these third world shitholes is for the explicit purpose of using them to cause chaos, and overthrow whatever government they are in disagreement with in the hopes of gaining influence in said countries (be it for natural resources, territories, preventing the spread of communism, or whatever else have you). It's all a game and is in no way backed by some ideology of 'trusting' said individuals or granting freedom to the oppressed.

 

[kalash]

A lot of anarchists on NES.

 

[Admin]

A lot of anarchists on NES.

That gets pretty damn old. Why bother trying to troll?

 

[Quiet]

Wait until you guys get a gander of my hand-held, shoulder-fired, truck-mounted vaporizer that emits a stream of directed energy plasma! It is calibrated to avoid harming any mammal with a body temperature in excess of 100.8 to avoid harming dogs while assuredly killing all humans (without active ebola.) You can sweep as fast as you can turn and it will cut a school in half, with an effective range of nearly 3,000 yards a sustained fire of 10 seconds and a fire-to-ready recharge time of under 1 second. I do not know how to limit "over" penetration, so backstop identification is critical yet of questionable value.

Internet connected and unencrypted it can be controlled remotely by you via iPad or Android.

It also plays a nice game of chess.

I haven't been able to test fire it yet because Massachusetts bans electric weapons.

 

[white feather]

Wait until you guys get a gander of my hand-held, shoulder-fired, truck-mounted vaporizer that emits a stream of directed energy plasma!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You are purposfully taking what I've said out of context, and are applying the general liberal definitions to them. See my previous post for slightly clearer meaning. Especially the part where we tout the torch after Sandy Hook that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue, only to then do everything in our power to prevent mental health reform while offering no alternative options in return.
When I say "sensable laws" and "deemed unsuitable through due process" I'm talking about addressing the issues of the Adam Lanzas/James Holms/Charles Whitmans/Andrew Kehoe's/ etc... in our societies. We cant pretend they don't exist, because they do, and always will. Same goes for the repeat offenders that we constantly see recycled through our justice system. Some of them simply cant be reconditioned to function in society without actively harming others, and THOSE are the people that we need to address.

Please tell me how the .gov identifies said people? what is deemed unsuitable etc.. and who decides it?