Where do you draw the line on civilian ownership of weapons?

[LumbergTech]

When you discuss "assault weapons" with a lot of pro-gun people, they think that they should be able to own them just like a regular gun. For the purposes of discussion, lets set aside the arbitrary guidelines that are sometimes used to determine what is an assault weapon and operate on the assumption that by assault weapon we mean weapons which are significantly more effective at killing more people in a shorter period of time with less effort put forth to do so.

The few of my friends who are very pro-gun types seem to feel comfortable with people wearing AR15s to Walmart, as where this makes me highly uncomfortable. Where do you personally draw the line? Should people be able to carry grenades, bombs or even something like a high powered laser? This might sound a little silly, but I am genuinely interested to know what people really think is acceptable and why. I am not an expert on weapons, so my imagination is limited, but what criteria do you personally use for the destructive power of a device to be wielded in public or to be owned by a civilian? What SHOULDN'T a person be able to own?

 

[Craig234]

The second amendment does not say:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, ask the NRA, ask your friends, how their opinion of what the second amendment differs from that. It doesn't. They wrongly think it says that.

What it actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia CONTAINS the right.

Now, it used to be that a well regulated militia was made by a state sending out word to its men, 'grab your guns, a militia has been ordered, come join'.

Those days are long, long past.

That's the problem - your friend confuse 'going to Wal-Mart' with the function of a 'well regulated milita' protecting the country's security from some threat like England.

You didn't see the founding fathers packing guns as they met in Independance Hall and walked around town.

The right your friends want is a right not in the constitution. But they're happy to misrepresent the second amendment, chopping it in half removing the qualifier, to get it.

That's really the larger issue more than the type of weapon to take to Wal-Mart.

When your friend goes to Wal-Mart, he has the police on duty, the national guard on duty, and the federal military on duty, not to mention NATO and the UN.

The need for him to shoot the redcoats in the Wal-Mart is pretty much gone.

Whatever right we're talking about, IMO it can be pretty much be limited at least to guns at home.

But what about 'bear' arms? That is still in the context of a militia and seems to me to prevent disarming someone heading to the militia or using the gun in normal use, so that the armed population who would make up the militia was not disarmed - not patrolling Wal-Mart for the British.

It can be debated about that need being totally gone versus some romantic,naive idea of a 'citizen army' still being around to protect us. But it's not patrolling Wal-Mart.

I know they also might think it's fun to have a sort of vigilante posse everywhere ready to shoot criminals (some of the time they try), but that isn't what the founding fathers did, either. They need to understand the difference between what the constitution says and what they want it to say. Now, maybe that right can be protected by a state constitution, by laws, if the people want, but I don't see the second amendment saying it. Let's get back to 'states' rights' on it and let each state decide for itself.

Limits on the federal government? They seem reasonably well set in law - a basic firearm - a rifle or shotgun in the home - seems pretty protected. Beyond that, it seems the federal government has some flexibility on what to say it and isn't protected. So the to your question, looking at the history of the law not overturned by the courts - banning 'assault rifles' and big clips and automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns and Saturday night specials and brass knuckles - is 'not much is protected'.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd gladly allow no restrictions on guns if it meant that states had to have their own military and people had to supply their own arms IF it meant the US military was all but virtually non existent.

Of course then one would have to wonder if there would be a greater potential for civil war. I think it would totally change the scope of the US's involvement in foreign affairs and domestic policy would look a lot different and a patriot would look different than a so called patriot of today.

 

[Agent11]

People like to try to make this argument, however the supreme court disagrees with you. (I do too.)

I think you should be able to buy any handgun or rifle you want, so long as you aren't a convicted felon or mental defective.

We could have outfitted a ship with cannons and gotten a piece of paper that made it legal to pirate British ships during the revolutionary war, hows that for context.

 

[Doppel]

Supreme court has already settled this for us (to a degree, it's not final yet). Not that one cannot necessarily second-guess the supreme court, but they have analyzed a lot of documentation and history and were very comfortable saying that the 2nd amendment allows access to "common use arms" in self-defense.

If we go from self-defense, I'd say I have no issue with the average joe having a pistol, rifle, shotgun, including semi-auto (which can include "assault weapons").

A grenade is never used in self-defense. It WOULD be a valid part of a militia, though. I doubt many of us here can envision a US in which grenades are easily accessible to all, so we're probably forced to admit that a homeland-defending militia doesn't, nor will it ever exist in the US.

I am more concerned with who has access to guns than what guns they have access to. A strong majority of gun crime is done with illegal weapons (even though illegal weapons are a minority of those owned). We need in general to ensure criminals and general miscreants cannot get ANYTHING. I don't want a gang banger walking around with a pistol. But if you, a guy with a job, no criminal history, want to buy a machine gun it doesn't really bother me because I know the odds of you using it in a crime are practically speaking 0%.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A well regulated militia CONTAINS the right.

That's one opinion.

I personally have given up debating the meaning of the second. IMO, it is simply too vague for people to ever agree about what it means. There will never be any agreement, and the wording is just too unclear for any one side to be clearly persuasive.

Now, it used to be that a well regulated militia was made by a state sending out word to its men, 'grab your guns, a militia has been ordered, come join'.

Those days are long, long past.

There's a way to deal with provisions in the Constitution that are out of date. It's called the amendment process. If we really think the second is no longer needed, we can amend it.

But those who oppose gun rights know that, as much as they think the second is outdated, a lot of others don't. So, instead of using the Constitution as intended, they just try to end run around it.

Either way, the "days long past" argument I find wholly uncompelling.

 

[randomrogue]

I have some very pro gun friends that are starting to drive me crazy since they post at least once a day something to facebook. A lot of it is kinda lame.

For example they posted a video of Biden saying that people don't need an AR-15 for home defense but can use a shotgun. The video then went on to show a whole bunch of dumb women smacking themselves from the recoil of the shotgun but gently operating the AR-15 like a toy.

I would not live in a community that had people carrying weapons around. Why? I don't want to live with people who are afraid of everything. All my gun toting Rambo friends are constantly posting about how they need a gun to protect themselves or how happy they have their gun with them since their husband is out of town. It's just pure fear mongering. The solution isn't for everyone to go back to the wild west days. If you feel unsafe where you live then you should move - Not prepare for battle. If you live in a yuppie neighborhood with almost no crime and are afraid of being raped in your own home then you need to see a shrink, not arm up.

If the USA would simply address the lack of health care to its population we would reduce a lot of the gun problems on both sides. The side that's nuts and goes and shoots up a school, and the side that's so scared that they need a gun with them at all times.

 

[waggy]

fear mongering? to be ready for something?

I live in the country. a call to 911 won't matter. the police won't be here for 10+ minutes. what is my wife/kids/me to do? serve someone crumpets and ask them to wait?

in such a situation there is nobody to protect my wife and kids beyond us. I can't fight off a grown man. And i really don't want to take a chance that they just want my TV and not rape my daughter.

Also we do have wild animals out here still. the neighbor a few weeks ago shout a coyote that was trying to get in her chicken coup.

Guns are needed out here. they are my right. It is not "fear mongering" to know how to use them and want them in the house

edit: damn coyotes got into my duck area last summer and killed off 12 ducks. if i had seen the fucker damn right i would have killed it

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nukes are bad. Bombs in general. Rifles and handguns? Most anything. If semi-auto is the limitation I'm good with that.

 

[Kelvrick]

I have some very pro gun friends that are starting to drive me crazy since they post at least once a day something to facebook. A lot of it is kinda lame.

For example they posted a video of Biden saying that people don't need an AR-15 for home defense but can use a shotgun. The video then went on to show a whole bunch of dumb women smacking themselves from the recoil of the shotgun but gently operating the AR-15 like a toy.

I would not live in a community that had people carrying weapons around. Why? I don't want to live with people who are afraid of everything. All my gun toting Rambo friends are constantly posting about how they need a gun to protect themselves or how happy they have their gun with them since their husband is out of town. It's just pure fear mongering. The solution isn't for everyone to go back to the wild west days. If you feel unsafe where you live then you should move - Not prepare for battle. If you live in a yuppie neighborhood with almost no crime and are afraid of being raped in your own home then you need to see a shrink, not arm up.

If the USA would simply address the lack of health care to its population we would reduce a lot of the gun problems on both sides. The side that's nuts and goes and shoots up a school, and the side that's so scared that they need a gun with them at all times.

I see the same from the other side posting stories of weeping parents and heartless extremists who don't care for the lives of children. Moving away from the problem never does anything to help solve the problem. When a neighborhood starts going downhill, everyone who is worth anything moves away and what happens, it just turns into a slum. But if the neighborhood actually got together to look out for each other, then it can maintain its safe environment.

I'm going to use the Trayvon Martin case in Florida as an example. What exactly happened is up in the air and I won't say anything regarding what was right and what was wrong, but if criminals knew that neighbors in a neighborhood knew each other and they will confront strangers, are you telling me criminals won't be weary of that neighborhood?

I've had several friends had their houses NOT broken into because their neighbor saw someone jump a fence into their backyard and confront them. Too bad that didn't happen at my house and it got ransacked.

The police came and interviewed my neighbors and they said around the same time, someone rang their doorbell but when they answered, the guy left. MO seems to be ring the doorbell and if nobody answers, jump the fence and break in through a back window. My mother in law NEVER answers the door and is rarely ever not home. She'll look through the peep hole and maybe if it is someone in a police/official uniform, she'll say something, but thats it. Now, if she was home that day, what would have happened after the guy broke in? Is it my fault for not moving even further away from the city? I live in suburbia on the edge of rural. Drive another mile from downtown and you start seeing horses and cows.

I agree with your point regarding health care and its reduction in these mass shootings, but I don't think health care would do much to solve criminal activity. Probably education, police presence will do that, but the budgets for those two things aren't exactly ballooning to hire more patrol cops. I think a lot of these guys going out and "arming themselves" at walmarts is the knee jerk reaction of "people only need double barreled shotguns." I don't remember seeing that many of these open carrying demonstrations unless there were active government bills/officials trying to limit what people could have. In their own way, they're trying to say look, I was armed, I was in public, nobody was harmed.

 

[Screech]

At the federal level, gun ownership is protected not only by the second but also the 9th and 10th, ie, even if you make the argument that the second doesn't actually say you can own weapons under federal law, nowhere else in the constitution is that right abridged (and so it is protected).

Whether or not states can regulate is now the subject of heller (edit: and mcdonald v chicago) (and which reading of the second and 14th) which I more or less agree with.

 

[beachchica]

I'll just point out that grenades and bombs are not firearms. A firearm uses a small charge to propel a projectile down a tube.

That issue aside, I should be allowed to own any kind of gun or rifle I want. I should also be allowed to take it with me anywhere I want, concealed or otherwise.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Supreme court has already settled this for us (to a degree, it's not final yet). ....

I am more concerned with who has access to guns than what guns they have access to. ....

Well said, I agree with all of this.

Gun control advocates should focus on what we can generally agree on: denying access to criminals and the mentally ill. Closing the private-sale loophole, maybe even mandating gun safes.

Here in WA state there was a chance to close the gun show / private sale loophole but the lawmakers ruined it by sponsoring a Brady foundation bill that they didn't bother to read. The bill included allowing random, warrantless home entry for "inspections" of your guns.

 

[randomrogue]

On some level I suppose it really just depends on where you live/work and what you believe in. I've lived in nice areas and I've lived in bad areas but never in an area that warranted a weapon. If there were lots of robberies we had alarm systems, timers, guards, and a neighborhood watch. Throw in a pinch of common sense. In the end it was just one house with two very old people in it that got robbed whenever they went out for dinner. You'd think that after the 2nd time they'd just get a house sitter or someone to come by while they were gone. I was too young to ask that question though. Either way I don't think that justified arming up. I'm sure they saw it the same way. They survived the nazi concentration camps and I don't think they thought it was worth getting into a shootout with a group of burglars.

I've worked in some of the worst areas in the country. Multiple murders by my work. However, having a gun would not have helped me. There was one shootout where everyone died. Those that lived died on the way to the hospital. They were all criminals fighting over some criminal activity. A deal gone bad. Others were just cold blooded murders where someone obviously pissed someone else off so they got shot in the back of the head while walking down the street. One in the face. Not much to be done there.

Lived in an apartment where a kid got shot and died. He somehow got involved in some kind of gang activity. I'm not sure if he was armed or if a gun would have saved him but I'd suspect that the outcome would have been more like the Reservoir Dogs scene I described by my work.

To truly be able to defend yourself against an armed intruder you need to be trained. Trained to handle a weapon, in the dark, against an armed moving target. Alternatively you could just run. Situations where the outcome is going to be positive for you with a weapon are going to be few and far between vs simply running away or hiding. My "stuff" isn't worth getting into a shootout. My family is but I'm not trained for it and my friends that hunt ducks and deer aren't trained for it either despite all their facebook hoopla.

One case where I felt a weapon was pretty useful though was in a case of road rage. The guy being chased flashed a weapon and that ended the craziness immediately. The other driver backed off.

 

[shortylickens]

I'll just point out that grenades and bombs are not firearms. A firearm uses a small charge to propel a projectile down a tube.

That issue aside, I should be allowed to own any kind of gun or rifle I want. I should also be allowed to take it with me anywhere I want, concealed or otherwise.

Wrong. A firearm is any propelled device, it also includes bows, crossbows, blowguns, and slingshots.

 

[cwjerome]

I personally have given up debating the meaning of the second. IMO, it is simply too vague for people to ever agree about what it means. There will never be any agreement, and the wording is just too unclear for any one side to be clearly persuasive.

For the most part I have given up debating the meaning as well. This goes a little into constitutional interpretation, as a person should have an understanding of what "militia," "well regulated," and "the people" meant when the Amendment was written. For further understanding a person can look into the writings of Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others as to what their beliefs and intent were. I'm pretty comfortable with my own understanding of the 2nd, and I believe the Supreme Court is pretty close to interpreting it properly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have some very pro gun friends that are starting to drive me crazy since they post at least once a day something to facebook. A lot of it is kinda lame.

For example they posted a video of Biden saying that people don't need an AR-15 for home defense but can use a shotgun. The video then went on to show a whole bunch of dumb women smacking themselves from the recoil of the shotgun but gently operating the AR-15 like a toy.

I would not live in a community that had people carrying weapons around. Why? I don't want to live with people who are afraid of everything. All my gun toting Rambo friends are constantly posting about how they need a gun to protect themselves or how happy they have their gun with them since their husband is out of town. It's just pure fear mongering. The solution isn't for everyone to go back to the wild west days. If you feel unsafe where you live then you should move - Not prepare for battle. If you live in a yuppie neighborhood with almost no crime and are afraid of being raped in your own home then you need to see a shrink, not arm up.

If the USA would simply address the lack of health care to its population we would reduce a lot of the gun problems on both sides. The side that's nuts and goes and shoots up a school, and the side that's so scared that they need a gun with them at all times.

Where does health care fit in here?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

For the most part I have given up debating the meaning as well. This goes a little into constitutional interpretation, as a person should have an understanding of what "militia," "well regulated," and "the people" meant when the Amendment was written. For further understanding a person can look into the writings of Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others as to what their beliefs and intent were. I'm pretty comfortable with my own understanding of the 2nd, and I believe the Supreme Court is pretty close to interpreting it properly.

The preponderence of opinions I've come across seem to suggest the majority of the founders supported individual gun ownership in any case so people being armed wasn't seriously questioned by the founders as a group. There's more basis for it than the principle of church and state as it's come to be.

 

[LumbergTech]

What I am trying to understand is how people draw the line between what is TOO dangerous, and what isn't and if their reasoning is sound. We see that on the gun control side, there are some irrational rules about what makes a weapon illegal to own, but what about the pro-gun side? What makes a weapon too dangerous for personal ownership in your mind? People seem to scoff when you bring up something like bombs or grenades, but you can kill a lot of people just with regular guns...so what is the determining factor in your mind?

 

[randomrogue]

Opinions are going to be all over the place.

Personally I feel like a weapon appropriate for whatever you're hunting is ok. You would use a different weapon on a bear than on pheasant. You don't need something crazy like a 50 caliber for any hunting.

For personal defense it really depends on where you're using it. Small apartment? A pistol or shotgun would be appropriate. Something out in the country might best be able to utilize a rifle. Carbines are probably not going to be appropriate since you are spraying bullets. I don't think full auto, large clips, and high caliber weapons are appropriate. You shouldn't be getting into a gun battle. Like I said above if you're getting into a gun battle you're doing something wrong.

Those who feel they need a weapon for fighting the government need to get their heads checked. That I find absurd and don't approve of the arguments they use for the necessity of military grade weapons.

 

[Murloc]

I don't understand the mental masturbation as to what the founders meant. The founders are dead. You are alive, you are living in the country, you decide. Did they want something different? Too bad, my ancestors probably wanted to burn witches and I don't care either.

@LumbergTech I think that the fact that with explosives you can destroy an armored car or a building without getting stopped is a pretty compelling reason. With assault rifles alone you can't destroy the system. Look at how difficult it is for Syrian rebels, even with armored vehicles and rockets (they actually took down aircraft so they can use them too), the economy completely halted and massive desertions in the military.
That's why explosive weapons are not legal imho. Also you can't use explosives for self-defense or sports (unpratical and too pricey), that's why pro-gun people don't care about them imho. No one thinks about the militia part as you already have a strong army.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't understand the mental masturbation as to what the founders meant. The founders are dead. You are alive, you are living in the country, you decide. Did they want something different? Too bad, my ancestors probably wanted to burn witches and I don't care either.

The fact that someone is dead or alive doesn't mean anything when it comes to principles written into the US Constitution. I think it's essential to understand the reasoning behind what was put into the Constitution to understand the Constitution. That's a starting point to make rational decisions and determine what, if anything, needs to be changed. I don't believe we should just wake up in the morning and declare history irrelevant and make up whatever we want.

 

[randomrogue]

The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution are arguably the best pieces of written work ever. We want to minimize any changes because there isn't anyone leading the USA that even holds a candle to the founding fathers. Amendments are few and far between and difficult to get through.

 

[Craig234]

fear mongering? to be ready for something?

I live in the country. a call to 911 won't matter. the police won't be here for 10+ minutes. what is my wife/kids/me to do? serve someone crumpets and ask them to wait?

in such a situation there is nobody to protect my wife and kids beyond us. I can't fight off a grown man. And i really don't want to take a chance that they just want my TV and not rape my daughter.

Also we do have wild animals out here still. the neighbor a few weeks ago shout a coyote that was trying to get in her chicken coup.

Guns are needed out here. they are my right. It is not "fear mongering" to know how to use them and want them in the house

edit: damn coyotes got into my duck area last summer and killed off 12 ducks. if i had seen the fucker damn right i would have killed it

No one is taking issue with you having guns for those needs.

Note, the issue of the second amendment is a different question.

Even if the second amendment did not cover that, it doesn't mean you don't have the right under state law.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If the Constitution was truly well-written, we wouldn't spend so much time arguing over what it means.

The document is actually pretty poorly written. It is too vague and doesn't spell out in enough detail what the founders wanted codified.

And the second is the worst of the lot in this regard.