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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Being able to mail order ammo would be great.
Are you NUTS? Ravens are quite dangerous! Mine is likely the most dangerous weapon I own. We've got to draw the line somewhere.
And the OP's little square is still green...Still open?
I'm impressed
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.
Serious Answer One : Thou Shalt not commit Murder. Really , that's all the gun control and weapons law we need.
FU & still serious answer Two :
I'll compromise.
Scrap every gun law , sit down with a pen and paper , and write me up a set that applies to All private citizens who aren't locked up and over the age of ... 4 foot 10 inches ... AND ALL local/county/State & federal LEO ( including National Guard) alike. This must include things in past use as well - like M-14s ...
If the National Guard or ATFE can't have have it , I'll give it up , too. ...
Surely you don't mean not to put ANY law between the Adam Lanzas, Jared Loughners, James Holmes, or any batshit crazy de jour and firearms?
You want to see 2A go the way of 18A? Make it easy for the crazy's to kill rooms full of kids, movie theaters full of...whatever....and God forbid...politicians.
Of course we need good laws regarding guns!
Is that really rocket science?
The OP asked for our opinion on what laws would actually work and be enforceable, a very fair question and one ESPECIALLY relevant to the folks on this forum.
Please tell me how the .gov identifies said people? what is deemed unsuitable etc.. and who decides it?
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.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i would throw the best parties ever if at the end of the night/early morning we celebrated the end of our festivities with a low-yield thermonuclear explosion.
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.
Would de-regulation or de-criminalization of drugs have unintended consequences?
Would de-regulation or de-criminalization of drugs have unintended consequences?