Stance on gun control

[SPEMack618]

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

Is there any room for common sense though? You can make the argument that machine guns cost a lot of money so legal ones are not used for crimes, but this is only because they are in very limited supply due to the NFA. With a universal lack of any gun control, there would be companies making POS machine pistols for $300 which would definitely do more harm than good.

[Excalibur]

The problem is when you start on that path of so called "common sense", it's a slippery slope that goes deeper.

During the time when the 2A was written, the founding fathers were well aware of advancing tech of the era. Repeating guns were an idea and the concept of a gun that can shoot faster than one shot at a time was the dream of all gun makers and soldiers of the time. Now, could they have actually thought of machine guns and planes? Perhaps not, but I believe they'd understand how it does not effect what the average free American can have. Remember, the British wanted to confiscate all firearms from the colonists and ban use and it didn't matter what type of gun. All guns.


The fact that there's many cases outside the US where heavily restricted gun control have given birth to small illegal shops all over the place making easy to make machine guns. One case was in Australia. Brazil is another and the Philippines.

You need to understand what kind of people live in America. If anything, the more restrictions we kept passing in America, the larger coverage of deaths with guns seemed to take place following.


And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

What we should focus at with laws is making the penalty for irresponsible actions and crime with firearms harsher.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

You cant make the argument though that if one sub-set of the population can be trusted with a type of weapon then it should be available to everybody else. If you make the argument that only those people than the Government deems can be trusted with a weapon can have it, then surely this would go strongly against the universal right to keep and bear arms would it not?

Honestly, I also don't buy the argument that the founding fathers had any idea where firearms technology, society or the world as a whole was going to be 200+ years into the future. A couple of centuries from now we could have practical shoulder fired railguns and plasma rifles that can blast straight through a building, do you think it would be reasonable for anybody to walk into a gun store and buy one of them?

[Excalibur]

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

[SPEMack618]

I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?

That last part has always been used in reverse to defend why we should have all the cool toys.

Not just the Hughes Amendment, but the 86 ban and the Gun Control Act as well. Also lift importation bans on foreign made rifles. I want me a G36 and if I need a stamp for it, let me not wait a whole year for it. Just do another complete background check. To make the scared people happy, just have me do a double background check. There is literally no point in the months and months of wait process.


Also, from the cops I know and the guys who are former cops, the training level and general mentalities of guns for the average LEO is abysmal. Lack of practice and training and good mindset has lead to more accidents in law enforcement than with civilians...and we're supposed to trust our lives to these people.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

Maybe it is just my rather dim view on humanity, but I will freely admit that I don't trust most people. I also do not think that gun control will necessarily prevent people from intending to commit crime, but if it is possible to limit the scope or severity of a crime then I think it is something that is worth looking at.

Another big difference in our opinions is that I think it is totally reasonable that police and military forces are allowed to use weapons that civilians do not have access to. I am a British firearms officer, and in order for me to carry and use the weapons that I do I was vetted, trained, tested, and am held constantly accountable for my actions. This is not the case with the man on the street. From a more selfish point of view, I do a job that on occasion puts me in harms way, and am happier in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time I am better armed and equipped than the other guy.

[SPEMack618]

Ah. There lies the root cause of differing views my good friend.

As an American I want the Federal/State/Local cops to be wary that I may be as well, if not better armed than them. They protect and serve me, not the other way around.

[StanTheMan]

I see where Nyles is coming from and even agree to a point, but again, that heel-digging attitude didn't come out of nowhere. While I agree that I too don't like the stigma being placed there as he mentions, keep in mind just where it's being applied from.

I find it rather hypocritical and disingenuous that many on the 'pro-gun' side (which I'll admit are mainly right-leaning) are being demanded to be so accepting in other social and civil issues from the 'other' (left-leaning) side while also being demanded to allow the further chipping away at rights and privileges they care about. Again, our attitude didn't come in a vacuum. Liberty is a door that swings both ways. I've no problem with individual freedoms - I want gays to be married if they want, people to worship as they please (or not), and so on - Yet I can't enjoy my firearms rights as-is (when things are already quite irksome in spots)? Bah.

Bans and many other gun control proposals reek of the same flawed, if not absurd mentality used in applying the War on Drugs. And we know how well that's gone. The Drug War just doesn't fuckin' work in its intended purpose and has lead to a whole culture of abuse and shitting on the citizenry. Much more serious 'gun control' will lead down the same path, all in the same or similar canned excuses of 'common sense', 'public safety', and so on.

Meh, I think I'm repeating myself and as I've said my piece and stand by it I will only repeat that I would consider some stronger measures IF I didn't feel they would be abused by those Excalibur speaks of that wish to ban away anything they find objectionable. It's not like I'm unwilling to accept some restrictions, as indeed there are some limitations on other rights. But for the most part, I believe what is present is plenty enough - short of things like some mandatory training/familiarization I'm really just reluctant to accept them. c552, I share that same distrust, in fact even moreso than you do. But things like bans ignore if not disavow the very concept of trust, automatically assuming it can't be attained. Like Ex I agree that's just a crummy mentality to go with.

For the record, I personally interpret the 2A similarly to Excalibur. I also agree with him that the bigger thing is that more uniform and harsher penalties should be applied to those that break firearms regs and laws. I've read only a small percentage of failed background checks on sales are even prosecuted, which is absurd given we have two if not three whole federal law enforcement agencies that can be involved in that, one supposedly dedicated to that specifically. Granted checks can fail for ridiculous reasons, again, I'm hesitant to trust to gov't there as well. Nonetheless, when serious laws are broken, that's indeed not something that should warrant a mere wrist-slapping. Firearms laws are serious. Or at least they should be.

I agree having the right means having the responsibility - And while I concede that is partly on the user and requires due diligence on their part (again, why I've little problem with checks and training) that has to include backing it up with stiff penalties and the willingness to use them on those that willfully shirk that responsibility.

Eh, just adding a scant bit to some already good and fair thoughts. As I said, I've no real solutions. All I really have is a lot of worry about my rights (not just 2A) being pissed on from other people's misplaced outrage and overbearing sensibilities.