What is an appropriate level of "gun" control?

[ironsides]

Check for criminal record.
Check Mental health records.
Rifle and or pistol safety training course.


Allow a citizen with a clean record to purchase any weapon they like with the only special restrictions be on fully automatics (machine guns, they will need a special Federally licensed permit)

In other words register the individual, not the weapon.

 

[BruSan]

I'd be happy to have free access to any weapon I could carry away.



But that is just me. Despite the silliness below, let's make it clear that we are discussing firearms............and not RPGs, M1 Abrams Tanks, F-14s or nuclear weapons....just personal arms.

I do deeply believe that free men (women, etc) have a right to easy access to the means to defend themselves against criminal activity and against tyranny.

That said, I am willing to compromise. I prefer that those who share the ranges and hunting fields with me have some modicum of skill, and are not criminally insane. To that end, I accept that licensing serves some purpose, with background checks and safety training a prerequisite. I would have them graduated, from long gun possession and acquisition up to concealed carry of handguns.

I think the classification of weapons is ludicrous. When the deadliest short range weapon on earth is the standard duck-hunters' gun, the classification system simply serves no purpose. With a normal, every day five shot Rem 870 12 ga pump gun, I can put 60 .33 caliber bits of lead (2 3/4" magnum 00 buckshot) into the air much quicker than you can fire two mags (60 rounds) of .36 caliber lead out of a full auto 9mm machine gun. Think about that.

There should be merely two classes, and that only for licensing purposes....... shortguns (less than 660 mm long) and long guns (more than 660 mm long)....that's it! Well, and seeing as full auto disturbs people so, I'd be willing to throw the machine guns out of the sleigh and have them completely prohibited.

That's it.

BTW, I listened to CBC "as It Happens" yesterday, and heard an Arab reporter discuss how desperate the Syrian people are for firearms with which to defend themselves against the army.

Kinda solidified my already concrete position.

Excellant position!

 

[ironsides]

I would take a F-14 up against any fighter today with the exception of the F-22 and F-35. I have seen one out perform a F-15 at a air show. Unfortunately unless there hidden there are no F-14's left that are flyable, they were chopped up.

 

[Corduroy]

Harrumpfh!!!!

Outdated, old, not a top performance entity anymore.

Neither is the F-14.

But I hope I can still be your wingman....

(flutters lashes attractively)

Anytime.

Where would you park it?

Good point. Gonna need an aircraft carrier I suppose.

I do deeply believe that free men (women, etc) have a right to easy access to the means to defend themselves against criminal activity and against tyranny.

How can you defend yourself against tyranny with guns when tyranny uses tanks?

 

[Colpy]

How can you defend yourself against tyranny with guns when tyranny uses tanks?

Me great armchair warrior.

use rifles to get bigger weapons.

Fight where tanks can't go.

 

[Corduroy]

Me great armchair warrior.

use rifles to get bigger weapons.

Fight where tanks can't go.

Then they'll just send something that can go there. Like bombers and cruise missiles. We need every weapon they have if we want to defend ourselves from tyranny.

 

[CDNBear]

Then they'll just send something that can go there. Like bombers and cruise missiles. We need every weapon they have if we want to defend ourselves from tyranny.

That's pretty much what the authors of the US Constitution were thinking.

 

[Corduroy]

That's pretty much what the authors of the US Constitution were thinking.

The right to keep and bear arms applies to nuclear arms, IMHO. Why doesn't MAD apply to the war between citizen and government? If the government has nuclear weapons, we need the deterrent.

 

[gopher]

These should fill out just about anyone's Christmas stockings:

TV Special 400k

AGM 2009 Firestorm




If our Founding Fathers were around today these are the peace keepers they would stock up on their walls.

Of course, our Founders wouldn't leave the cupboards bare for the local militias - they keep a few of these around:

 

[Colpy]

The right to keep and bear arms applies to nuclear arms, IMHO. Why doesn't MAD apply to the war between citizen and government? If the government has nuclear weapons, we need the deterrent.

Yeah, that damn flying stuff will **** up your whole day when you are just trying to carry on a decent armed revolt.

We will endeavour to persevere.

 

[taxslave]

Simple: Only non criminals should be permitted to have guns. The way the lefties want it only criminals will have guns.

Where would you park it?

DOn't know about an F 15 but I can park a Harrier outside the shop. Or if armed any where I dam well please.

 

[ironsides]

The right to keep and bear arms applies to nuclear arms, IMHO. Why doesn't MAD apply to the war between citizen and government? If the government has nuclear weapons, we need the deterrent.

Civilian militia's do not have the military capacity to defeat a army, never were intended to. (They do get lucky sometimes). You already lost your rights to own and use machine guns without special permits (1920 crime spree) certain rifles and handguns, how much more do you want to lose. It won't make you safer. I'm just happy we have a 2nd Amendment in the United States.

How can you defend yourself against tyranny with guns when tyranny uses tanks?

That is a shame to think like that, one person can defeat a tank, just have to do it on your terms. Think outside the box.

 

[Machjo]

That is a shame to think like that, one person can defeat a tank, just have to do it on your terms. Think outside the box.

In WWII, Soviet soldiers had figured out how to stuff explosives down German tank exhoust pipes.

Also, a platoon hearing a low-flying jet flying towards them can also aim at the sky and start spraying bullest creating a wall of fire. When the jet flies through this wall, it's bound to suffer at least some damage. It might not even harm the pilot, but it will still cost the enemy lots of money fixing the damage to the jet, not to mention ground the jet for a day or so. That alone is a small victory against a superior enemy when the goal is to harass and deplete its resources. The cost of fixing the jet would most certainly be far more than the cost of a mag full of bullets.

 

[SLM]

Probably what we need most is criminal control, not gun control. If we had that then 'gun control' would kind of take care of itself wouldn't it?

Having said that, personally I'd prefer to at least have some comfort that there is a criminal background and/or history of mental illness check. Kind of like the same way in which I don't want them to give a driver's licence to a blind man.

 

[Machjo]

Probably what we need most is criminal control, not gun control. If we had that then 'gun control' would kind of take care of itself wouldn't it?

Having said that, personally I'd prefer to at least have some comfort that there is a criminal background and/or history of mental illness check. Kind of like the same way in which I don't want them to give a driver's licence to a blind man.

Two possible ways of preventing criminal behaviour:

1. Improve education for all, and:

2. guarantee access to employment somehow.

For that second part, one possible scenario might be some kind of peace corps. In short, unless you have a medical record showing you to be incapable of working, you would not be entitled to any social assistance. however, all would be free to join the peace corps. It could be organized along quasi-military lines, whereby you get x years of education in exchange for x years of service at low salary (education being free, that would be a more than reasonable deal), or some other means of guaranteeing employment for all.

After all, a starving man with a pistol is a prime candidate for criminal behaviour regardless of past criminal records or lack thereof.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Can I have an F-14? You can be my wingman, any time.

You probably can, if you can find anyone to sell you one, and if you can afford it and the parts to make and keep it flyable, (it also has to be registered). As a rather frugal co-worker often said, "if it floats, flys or f*cks, rent it". I only know of one Canadian civilian registered jet fighter, a MiG 15, its an expensive proposition.

I learned that you can also own a tank, and at the time, and if it has an operable main gun, the gun had to be registered. Even in gun banning England you can own one. Aquiring a modern tank is next to impossible so rebuilding an old one is probably the only option. I would think finding ammunition for it would be a bit of a problem, if not prohibitively expensive. At $10,000 per round, (in 2006), even our military had practicing with modern 155mm Howitzers limited.

 

[Colpy]

PRK Arms on CBS 47 news, Fresno - YouTube

Hilarious.

But even in my gun-filled (and very Christian) parent's house, firearms, ammunition and accessories were not considered appropriate Christmas gifts.

 

[Cannuck]

But even in my gun-filled (and very Christian) parent's house....

Nothing says Christ like a weapon.

 

[Colpy]

Nothing says Christ like a weapon.

You don't know much about anything, do you?

Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

Hardly the Henry .44 rimfire rifle He appears to be carrying.......but weapons, nonetheless.

(The Henry was one of the very first repeaters, and had a capacity of 16 rounds....introduced in the Civil War, the Confederate soldiers facing it called it "That damn Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week")

Christianity carries no condemnation of self-defense, nor the tools for self-defense, and certainly no condemnation for hunting. And ALL my Dad's guns were hunting guns.......

And did I not say even then they were not considered appropriate gifts????

 

[DaSleeper]

You don't know much about anything, do you?

Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

Hardly the Henry .44 rimfire rifle He appears to be carrying.......but weapons, nonetheless.

(The Henry was one of the very first repeaters, and had a capacity of 16 rounds....introduced in the Civil War, the Confederate soldiers facing it called it "That damn Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week")

I have a friend had one of them, also I believe some of the original paper cartriges...