-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
In general, what kind of gun law do we want?
- Thread starter IvIax
- Start date
- Status
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
You need papers for that
Quiet
Banned
Are you NUTS? Ravens are quite dangerous! Mine is likely the most dangerous weapon I own. We've got to draw the line somewhere.
The rate this country's going the first amendment will be treated like the 2nd and you'll need a speech license and a tax stamp to "buy a vowel."
It's heartwarming to see so many people who respect the law of the land, that is, the US Constitution which states the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Are we not the land of the free and home of the brave? Or is it the land of the weak and home of the slave? As has been stated, freedom is dangerous: with great freedom comes great opportunity both good and ill. If you wish not for freedom nor opportunity, then I suggest moving to North Korea where you shall have no illusions about your fate.
It's heartwarming to see so many people who respect the law of the land, that is, the US Constitution which states the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Are we not the land of the free and home of the brave? Or is it the land of the weak and home of the slave? As has been stated, freedom is dangerous: with great freedom comes great opportunity both good and ill. If you wish not for freedom nor opportunity, then I suggest moving to North Korea where you shall have no illusions about your fate.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,632
- Likes
- 2,424
And the OP's little square is still green...
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
Legal disclaimer: I have never posted negative feedback for anyone and my statement does not advocate for others to neg rep the op...
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
So reading through what I missed last night, I see people saying that guns are OK, but not RPGs. You guys do know that RPGs can be legally owned in the US right? Right now, (well, probably not in MA), people who have the money can go and have someone rebuild or build an RPG for them. There are at least a few transferable RPG in the country. Even if RPG weren't NFA destructive devices, they would still not be cheap. You think your run of the mill opportunistic criminal is going to use one? Same thing with automatic weapons. There are at least a few hundred thousand in the US right now. Last time somebody got killed with one in civilian hands (if my memory serves me correctly) was in the 80s in a clear example of justified self defense. You guys gotta stop drinking the government kool aid and think about what it means to be responsible and free individuals. Remember, you cannot be responsible without the freedom to act.
I love how one of the arguments against the 2A (that I've heard), is that civilians couldn't make a stand against the might of a modern military because they are just so much better armed. Yet, why are our arms so inferior? Because of the infringement of our rights.
pastera
NES Member
What allowed the "crazy de jour" to commit the acts was the extreme lack of people willing, and able, to defend themselves. Why were they not willing or able? Because the same antigun laws and attitude passed down upon them from the all-knowing "educated" elite and powerful.
In God We Trust
NES Member
I should be able to walk into sears and buy a suitcase nuke. Shall not be infringed and all.
iofneedle
NES Member
I will volunteer...it will be up to me and me alone to decides suitability...of course, I will need to charge a small fee...
i'm so glad that some folks in here seem to have all the answers and are so willing to share with us. have any or all of you considered a position with the california state government? i think that massachusetts just isn't restrictive enough for you guys, you do after all know what's best for everyone else in the thread.
Quiet
Banned
"small arms couldn't stand against the might of a modern military" When they use that line on me, I start talking about 5,000 "insurgents" in Iraq against our modern military of 150,000 and ask them how many soldiers would be required to fight 5,000,000 insurgents, and how they think that the people would deal with the US Army bombing US cities to weed out the insurgents.
Also tossed in frequently are things like "Why then did we send small arms to Libya, and how did that work? Why are they talking about arming Syrians? How about the Kurds begging for some arms?"
There are about 700,000 cops in the US and a military of a million two and reserves of 200k and guard of 500K giving a total of 2.6 million total armed forces, plus maybe another 500K(?) of armed feds. So 3 million paid armed forces. If all of them fought on the government side, how many would be needed to protect civilian infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, internet, roads, food distribution)? How many to protect government itself in all the states and in DC? How many to protect their own installations and depots? How many to protect chemical plants and refineries and nuclear plants?
Then how many would be available to fight?
The "small arms couldn't stand against the might of a modern military" is the most ridiculous and easily debunked argument and actually is great fodder for changing minds when spouted by the ignorant and not the ideological.
The line should be drawn at the ability to defend yourself against a particular type of weapon. If someone pulls a gun on me, I can pull my own and defend myself with it. However, if someone launches a nuke at Boston, I have zero ability to defend myself and neither do the other hundreds of thousands of people around me. So in that sense, no, civilians should not have access to nukes. It would be nice if governments didn't either, but they sort of have to when our enemies develop them. Oh, and as for the tyranny part - Americans wouldn't need nukes to overthrow a dictator.
There should be (and there are) laws against harming other people with guns (or knives, hammers, poison, etc...). There should be harsh punishments for people who harm other people. The mere possession of these items should be 100% legal.
You should be punished for what you do, not for what somebody thinks you might do.
You should be punished for what you do, not for what somebody thinks you might do.
Right, all you need to do to debunk it is point to any of the many successful insurgent actions from various parts of the world. I still think that the logic of that particular anti argument is particularly ironic.
It's pretty simply put in 2A. I think a practical interpretation should be that for every dollar spent by the Federal, State, and Local governments on defending those Governments interests, the People should have the same funds to arm themselves in any way they see fit, to the end not of defending the interest of the Government, but of the People in defense of the Constitution. Maybe this is what was meant by "militia", but in no way should supersede the individual RKBA either.
Back to the OP, the answer is None.
kalash, not enough imagination man! If someone is shooting a nuke at you and you have a missile defense system, you have a much better chance of shooting that nuke down than someone without a missile defense system. Hint - missile defense systems contain missiles, if civilians could own missiles then you could actually defend yourself against nukes, possibly successfully.
pastera
NES Member
For those that argue that regulation is needed because of gang bangers and drive by's with RPGs and such - Ask yourself how these gangs started and why they still flourish?
Why do they? Because our government tells us we cannot trade in a specific range of commercial goods. The problem started with the government restricting our rights, therefore, the solution cannot be further restrictions imposed by the government.
Why do they? Because our government tells us we cannot trade in a specific range of commercial goods. The problem started with the government restricting our rights, therefore, the solution cannot be further restrictions imposed by the government.
Jason Flare
NES Member
What amazes me is that people think some people shouldn't have nukes when plenty of people already have nukes and virtually nobody is completely bent out of shape about it.
There are a lot of nukes in the world and a lot of people just like us on this forum have them.
There are a lot of nukes in the world and a lot of people just like us on this forum have them.
Horrible
NES Member
Bingo! Any prohibition leads to unintended consequences and usually death. Prohibition of alcohol is what gave birth to organized crime. Would gangs exist today if drugs were legal? Maybe not.
Legalize drugs and drug cartels go out of business overnight! If NYC didn't have absurdulous taxes in cigs, Eric Garner might be alive today and I wouldn't have to listen to Al Sharpton's Bull $hit all the time.
Last edited:
Quiet
Banned
That would be a game changa. never bin done befo.
- - - Updated - - -
Would de-regulation or de-criminalization of drugs have unintended consequences?
survey says no.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html
i think it's on netflix, but there's a documentary with him in it where he explains a lot of what is in this article, too. go figure i forget the title now though.
You all bring up valid points, and I agree with most all of them. As I said earlier, I go back and forth on the subject, and the idea of pre-crime, and laws that do such, is absolutely disgusting and IMO violates due process. Still on the fence about common possession of RPG's, but perhaps my example with gang violence was a poor one. I also agree that laws that ban certain narcotics and what not are bullshit.
People should be able to live the lives they want as long as it does not bring direct harm to another. And if their actions do, especially if their actions purposefully do, then the penalties should be swift and just if found guilty.
Concerning the mental health issue, there truly is no way to stop all lunatics, even if laws an regulations are put in place. When I say sensible laws and due process, I should refer to them much more loosely as "reform" such that they don't focus so much on the access to an inanimate object so much as getting said people the help they need if indeed they need it.
People should be able to live the lives they want as long as it does not bring direct harm to another. And if their actions do, especially if their actions purposefully do, then the penalties should be swift and just if found guilty.
Concerning the mental health issue, there truly is no way to stop all lunatics, even if laws an regulations are put in place. When I say sensible laws and due process, I should refer to them much more loosely as "reform" such that they don't focus so much on the access to an inanimate object so much as getting said people the help they need if indeed they need it.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
I'll admit I would be uncomfortable if my next door neighbor had a nuke in the basement. (then again, he's an *******)
I can't think of any reason that conventional arms should be wholesale denied to the People.
Laws are for punishing, not for preventing.
We already have a perfectly good law: Thou shalt not kill.
That covers, like, almost all the situations one could use a gun in, having ill intent. "Thou shalt not steal" covers practically everything remaining.
Most people are on board with the concept of removing a specific person's rights through due process. Due process is the mechanism provided for in our Constitution to handle problems like this, NOT passing more senseless laws that can't possibly prevent something bad from actually happening.
I can't think of any reason that conventional arms should be wholesale denied to the People.
Laws are for punishing, not for preventing.
We already have a perfectly good law: Thou shalt not kill.
That covers, like, almost all the situations one could use a gun in, having ill intent. "Thou shalt not steal" covers practically everything remaining.
Most people are on board with the concept of removing a specific person's rights through due process. Due process is the mechanism provided for in our Constitution to handle problems like this, NOT passing more senseless laws that can't possibly prevent something bad from actually happening.
pastera
NES Member
Portugal seems to be doing fine with it...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
- Status
