Do you support gun control?

[Kibbo]

I think guns should be allowed for hunting, leisure, sport and collections. The laws and restrictions shoule reflect those uses, and restrict heavily on any use outside those.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Actually, it would be great if I were just allowed to own a P90 and a five-seven.

Take a look at this bad boy. Five-Seven*drool*

The Five Seven is available, though the SS190 round is prohibited.

A semi-auto P90 will be available later this year.

Pfff, I don't want that watered down stuff. I want the real deal with the armor piercing rounds. Criminals have access to body armor too.

Most of them dont wear it, though. I'd rather have a round that does a little more damage to an unarmored target than the 5.7x28mm, and deal with the fact that I'd have a less effective weapon in the extremely small chance that I may encounter someone wearing body armor.

At 900 rounds a minute the P90 will do plenty of damage. Trust me.

 

[digiram]

I support bullet control. If a bullet costs 10,000.00 a pop, then someone might think twice about shooting another person. Got that from Chris Rock btw.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Partial, but I think government's biggest role is to make sure felons don't get a hold of them over the counter. I think Americans should have some sense of self-control over what they buy though. Why in the blue hell do you need a armor-piercing, automatic weapon what turkey hunting? The question is... what's next? Grenade launchers to go deer hunting?

But seriously, it's a valid question: what weapon goes over the top?

At the levels of weapons you describe, its not about need. Its about want. Much like we want a faster PC or video card. We dont NEED one, we can use what we have, but isnt it nice?
Same with full auto weapons and grenade launchers. Trust me, your average street criminal will never in his life have enough cash saved up to buy a full auto weapon. The cheapest I've heard of is around 4 grand if you get lucky and shop hard, and thats for an Uzi. The nice FA weapons will set you back around $15,000. Thats well out of range of any common criminal, and out of range of most law abiding citizens. Having 15 grand to drop on whats essentially a toy is ALOT of money.
And the creme de la creme of fun guns? You'll put multiple Ferrari's in your garage for what they run, assuming you can even find one for sale.

You don't need a fast video card, but you don't need a M-60 either. Fact, a M-60 is used to kill people and a video card isn't.

There is NO reason why anyone needs to own a M-60. Crimes with these weapons rarley happen, but they have.

There has been about one crime ever committed with a registered NFA weapon.

Overly restrictive gun laws only serve to disarm the law abiding.

NFA?

I see your point, but I am sure there a plenty of cases when high caliber weapons have been used...

Originally posted by: Brackis
I'm going to use bullet points to make my statement clear, and make a pun

-Everyone should be required to go through an extensive gun training course before purchasing a gun, the same way a 16 year old takes Drivers-Ed and then has to pass a written and driving test. On top of the basic course for rifle and shotgun ownership, further training would be required for handgun ownership and any specialized weapon.

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

-Anyone who has served jailed time for any crime should not be allowed to own a handun.

-All automatic or select-fire weapons must be stored at a licensed gun range (they serve zero purpose outside of target shooting)

Other than that, shoot away! Everyone has the right from birth to own a gun this way, as long as they abide by the rules of our country.

I absolutely agree on the first point, if you want a firearm. You should have a training course simaller too Drivers Ed. Psychological exams would be required for anything above a average hunting rifle or shotgun.

I hope they do this already...

Not sure if I agree with this. How about prohibiting use of firearm and ammo in the same room as the firearm?

For any crime? No, a stupid 14 year shoplifting doesn't count. We all know we are reborn christians, just like dubya

In general, I want our current laws enforced. Not more laws added.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JackStorm
The people need to be armed to be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

Aren't those people the ones supporting "big" military as well?

And the good lady has just pointed out a huge 'loophole' in Republican morality. Anyone care to comment on how they support America's huge military spending but at the same time want to be prepared to fight the oppressive government?

Let me tell you, those assault rifles are not going to help you against Apache's.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JackStorm
The people need to be armed to be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

Aren't those people the ones supporting "big" military as well?

And the good lady has just pointed out a huge 'loophole' in Republican morality. Anyone care to comment on how they support America's huge military spending but at the same time want to be prepared to fight the oppressive government?

Let me tell you, those assault rifles are not going to help you against Apache's.

That's what SAMs are for.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Pfff, I don't want that watered down stuff. I want the real deal with the armor piercing rounds. Criminals have access to body armor too.

Most of them dont wear it, though. I'd rather have a round that does a little more damage to an unarmored target than the 5.7x28mm, and deal with the fact that I'd have a less effective weapon in the extremely small chance that I may encounter someone wearing body armor.

At 900 rounds a minute the P90 will do plenty of damage. Trust me.

Have they fixed the magazine's tendency to jam after being jarred? Personally, unless I expected to use it only against armored personnel, I wouldnt bother with something chambered in 5.7x28mm. But that is just me.

 

[miketheidiot]

I support a ban on fully auto/machineguns, a ban on cheaply made pistols that are more likely to injure the shooter than the victim, a ban on guns with explosive shells or larger than .50, and a waiting period.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JackStorm
The people need to be armed to be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

Aren't those people the ones supporting "big" military as well?

And the good lady has just pointed out a huge 'loophole' in Republican morality. Anyone care to comment on how they support America's huge military spending but at the same time want to be prepared to fight the oppressive government?

Let me tell you, those assault rifles are not going to help you against Apache's.

That's what SAMs are for.

Assuming you are serious, the irony of that is that the people who have the spare money to purchase surface to air missiles probably aren't going to be the people who feel the government is oppressing them and so even if legalized they are going to go mainly into the hands of wealthy private collectors, the same people the system is supporting and so it would be against their interests to aid the rebellion. While resources can certainly be pooled to purchase them, in order to fight a revolution you are going to need near universal support. When you have a population disgruntled to the point of rebellion, the governemnt isn't going to waste any time revoking any rights to weapons it has agreed to previously. Further, any large number of SAMs being purchased by the same people or even people who live in close proximity is bound to draw the attention of the FBI or equivalent agency as per nation, who, whether rightly or not, are going to be on the look out for that kind of thing. Without a large number of SAMs the amount of resistance you could offer Apache attack choppers in any numbers is token at best.

What all this means is that the government is going to have a good idea where the SAMs are before the shooting starts and aren't going to waste time reclaiming them once the rebellion begins to gain popularity. This is why ownership of guns isn't going to be all that effective in allowing rebellion because the government is going to keep track of where the weapons that can really hurt them are and they are going to take them back if their continued existance is threatened by them. If a successful rebellion were to take place, what would be needed would be to take the means of production, which if you have enough of the popular support probably shouldn't be too difficult, especially so if the workers at the arms and munitions factories are participating in the rebellion. Additionally, taking control of the arms depots would provide access to the same weapons.

Once you start down that path though, government restrictions on owning weapons become irrelevant because we have already crossed beyond the realm of what is legal and what is legal will be changed to suite the government needs.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JackStorm
The people need to be armed to be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

Aren't those people the ones supporting "big" military as well?

And the good lady has just pointed out a huge 'loophole' in Republican morality. Anyone care to comment on how they support America's huge military spending but at the same time want to be prepared to fight the oppressive government?

Let me tell you, those assault rifles are not going to help you against Apache's.

That's what SAMs are for.

Sounds good to me

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JackStorm
The people need to be armed to be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

Aren't those people the ones supporting "big" military as well?

And the good lady has just pointed out a huge 'loophole' in Republican morality. Anyone care to comment on how they support America's huge military spending but at the same time want to be prepared to fight the oppressive government?

Let me tell you, those assault rifles are not going to help you against Apache's.

That's what SAMs are for.

Assuming you are serious, the irony of that is that the people who have the spare money to purchase surface to air missiles probably aren't going to be the people who feel the government is oppressing them and so even if legalized they are going to go mainly into the hands of wealthy private collectors, the same people the system is supporting and so it would be against their interests to aid the rebellion. While resources can certainly be pooled to purchase them, in order to fight a revolution you are going to need near universal support. When you have a population disgruntled to the point of rebellion, the governemnt isn't going to waste any time revoking any rights to weapons it has agreed to previously. Further, any large number of SAMs being purchased by the same people or even people who live in close proximity is bound to draw the attention of the FBI or equivalent agency as per nation, who, whether rightly or not, are going to be on the look out for that kind of thing. Without a large number of SAMs the amount of resistance you could offer Apache attack choppers in any numbers is token at best.

What all this means is that the government is going to have a good idea where the SAMs are before the shooting starts and aren't going to waste time reclaiming them once the rebellion begins to gain popularity. This is why ownership of guns isn't going to be all that effective in allowing rebellion because the government is going to keep track of where the weapons that can really hurt them are and they are going to take them back if their continued existance is threatened by them. If a successful rebellion were to take place, what would be needed would be to take the means of production, which if you have enough of the popular support probably shouldn't be too difficult, especially so if the workers at the arms and munitions factories are participating in the rebellion. Additionally, taking control of the arms depots would provide access to the same weapons.

Once you start down that path though, government restrictions on owning weapons become irrelevant because we have already crossed beyond the realm of what is legal and what is legal will be changed to suite the government needs.

Well, if you are talking about a large scale rebellion I am sure that there would be some rogue engineers out there manufacturing all kinds of stuff in underground machine shops. I worked for a short time in a machine shop once and that place had the capability of cranking out all kinds of weapons (assuming you had the blueprints for them), and that wasn't even a very high tech/high end shop.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Pfff, I don't want that watered down stuff. I want the real deal with the armor piercing rounds. Criminals have access to body armor too.

Most of them dont wear it, though. I'd rather have a round that does a little more damage to an unarmored target than the 5.7x28mm, and deal with the fact that I'd have a less effective weapon in the extremely small chance that I may encounter someone wearing body armor.

At 900 rounds a minute the P90 will do plenty of damage. Trust me.

Have they fixed the magazine's tendency to jam after being jarred? Personally, unless I expected to use it only against armored personnel, I wouldnt bother with something chambered in 5.7x28mm. But that is just me.

No, they have special magazines.

The P90 is a blowback operated, selective fire weapon. It is fed from 50-rounds box magazines, made from transluscent polymer. The magazine is being located above the barrel, with the cartridges being aligned at 90 degrees to the barrel axis. Each magazine has built-in ramp that rotates cartridge to align it with the barrel prior to chambering it.

Text

Edit: According to this site it is just a rumor that the magazine on the P90 jams if it is dropped.

 

[miniMUNCH]

The constitution supports the right to bear arms...so citizens have the right to own and operate weapons within the constraints of the law.

But no one (outside of law enforcement and Mil.) needs an assault rifle, a .50 cal rifle, armor piercing bullets, or a handgun with a 20 round capacity.

I support gun registration, mandatory gun safety classes, detailed background checks, etc.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
The constitution supports the right to bear arms...so citizens have the right to own and operate weapons within the constraints of the law.

But no one (outside of law enforcement and Mil.) needs an assault rifle, a .50 cal rifle, armor piercing bullets, or a handgun with a 20 round capacity.

I support gun registration, mandatory gun safety classes, detailed background checks, etc.

Who are you to make that judgement? How about you worry about what you need and I worry about what I need?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I'm more worried about someone driving over me than I am getting shot (and if you saw the way people drove around Boston you'd understand why!).

Sh*t, if I lived in the same state as Ted Kennedy I'd be more worried about cars than guns, too. He has more kills with his car than I have with my guns (of people, that is; I'm sure I've bagged more wildlife).

That's a nice thought but guns alone won't do the trick. We'd need cruise missles, stingers, fighter jets, tanks, battleships, subs, extensive and well set up intelligence feeds. Even if we gave every person in the US a gun our military could still kick the sh!te out of us. The chance of a violent overthrow of the gov't is pretty much nill unless some people in the military decide to side with the people and not the gov't.

In a straight up, all-in fight, you'd be correct. However, our military hasnt been fully unleashed in Iraq. Do you really think they'd be given less restrictive ROE in NYC? Or that they'd be willing to inflict more collateral damage here in the States than they have been in Iraq? The hypothetical revolution we are discussing would have advantages over the Iraqi insurgents in practically every area, except I doubt there would be any suicide bombers. The only thing the government would be able to do to stop it is to prevent them from getting the weapons needed to start in the first place, ie restrictive gun control.

EDIT:

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
-Edward Abbey

It's hard to defend your country with a Super-Soaker.

They'd go for less collateral damage unless they weren't winning in which case they'd keeping upping the force until they did win.

I seem to remember someone else in the gov't having a drunk driving problem - oh yeah it was the president. fortunately he wasn't unlucky enough to have killed anyone (although his wife killed someone - that was an awful sketchy story).

 

[conjur]

A waiting period is all that's needed, imo. Oh, that and requiring that waiting period to apply to all sales at gun shows, too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
A waiting period is all that's needed, imo. Oh, that and requiring that waiting period to apply to all sales at gun shows, too.

fyi, gun shows already require an instant back ground check.

 

[Genx87]

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
A waiting period is all that's needed, imo. Oh, that and requiring that waiting period to apply to all sales at gun shows, too.

fyi, gun shows already require an instant back ground check.

Uhhh...no they don't

GUN SHOW CHECKS
Are background checks required at gun shows? No

No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate ? loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.

 

[piasabird]

On the surface I am against gun Control. In reality a question we may want to ask is do we want everyone toting around a 45 Auto or a Mac-10 on their person at all times. I recognize the right of a property owner to restrict people from toting guns on their property. Most states have laws restricting carrying guns to a bar if they sell alcohol. We have to be reasonably realistic.

However, I respect the right of a person to carry a weapon in the trunk of their car or if unloaded, in the cab of a truck or the inside of a car. I also respect that citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their property and keep a weapon on their property. This just all matters on what the State Law Is. Just dont cross your state boundary without knowing what the other state's law is or you could be going to jail.

Many states have laws requiring gun locks or maintaining a lock box for guns. However, many people are killed in their own home with their own gun. Children are curious and will find a gun no matter where you hide it. I made a personal decision not to keep guns after my children started getting old enough to get to the top closet shelf. However that was my personal decision. I mainly just used my gun for target practice so this was not that big of a decision. Since some people live in areas where they feel a need for a gun, I can understand their decision as well.

Where I use to work I knew a guy who's son was shot when he went to the door of some other boy who was messing with his girlfriend. The second boy was scared so he took his father's pistol and shot the boy and he died almost instantly. If that gun had not been in the home probably just a lot of shouting would have occurred.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
A waiting period is all that's needed, imo. Oh, that and requiring that waiting period to apply to all sales at gun shows, too.

fyi, gun shows already require an instant back ground check.

Uhhh...no they don't

GUN SHOW CHECKS
Are background checks required at gun shows? No

No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate ? loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.

The vast majority of sellers at gunshows are licensed dealers who still have to do the check + waiting period. There are a few individual sellers, who mostly specialize in older firearms, but I usually don't see many selling modern weapons. I personally see straw purchases (from licensed dealers) as a larger problem.

Since I hold a Curio and Relic license from the BATF I can cash & carry (no waiting period) any firearm over 50 years old or that is on a special list of eligible items.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

This has already been covered. You are beyond paranoid and this type of hyperbole deserves to be put in OT as it has NO basis of fact, reasoning, logic, or fathomable circumstance.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

This has already been covered. You are beyond paranoid and this type of hyperbole deserves to be put in OT as it has NO basis of fact, reasoning, logic, or fathomable circumstance.

Registration can be and is used as a waypoint to confiscation. It has happened in both California and New York.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

This has already been covered. You are beyond paranoid and this type of hyperbole deserves to be put in OT as it has NO basis of fact, reasoning, logic, or fathomable circumstance.

What are you smoking? This isn't paranoia, it is rational thought based on thousands of years of history and empirical results of government power spiraling out of control. (which it already has in the U.S.). What do you think will happen when those in power begin to lose that power? They have a LONG way to fall. I have no doubt that acts of desperation will be committed up to and including using military force.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

This has already been covered. You are beyond paranoid and this type of hyperbole deserves to be put in OT as it has NO basis of fact, reasoning, logic, or fathomable circumstance.

Registration can be and is used as a waypoint to confiscation. It has happened in both California and New York.

Please provide more information