How much Arms Control Do You Support?

[LAGC]

Poll question: How much Arms Control Do You Support?

I thought this would be an interesting poll to post.

For the record, I think the people should have available to them the same level of armaments that the typical infantryman has... to truly uphold the spirit of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms must include the means to deal with armored vehicles should the need arise. And felons should get their right to keep and bear arms restored upon completion of their sentence, so my choice is 9 below.

[AllyCat]

1. I do not like handguns. Pure and simple so I said #2

They have no purpose other than to injure and kill people and sometimes other living things.

[oneshooter]

9. Then you would have no problem

with people walking down the street with a rifle, carbine,or shotgun slung on their sholder?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AllyCat]

14. I knew you folks would come out of the wood work on this one

Of course I would have a problem with that. Those types of firearms can be used for hunting. If someone was walking down the street with it, I would have a problem with that.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllyCat]

30. Right. I'm an elitist who knows nothing of the real world.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. Yup.

Jeez.

[oneshooter]

31. Thank you for agreeing with me! n/t

[Callisto32]

38. Do you believe that state agenst ought to be allowed to remain armed?

[DissedByBush]

42. You probably didn't know

That most of the larger caliber pistols are designed for hunting.

[TPaine7]

10. Even if your premise were true,

surely you agree that sometimes people and other living things need to be injured or killed to protect the innocent, right?

If injuring and killing is all that guns are good for and killing and injuring are always bad, how can you support police officers, prison guards, and Secret Service officers having handguns?

Do you?

[AllyCat]

15. Okay, how is my premise false?

Going to the range to shoot targets that are NOT shaped like human outlines? Maybe. I dunno. Britain does not have armed police officers. I don't think it would work here, but then, we've never tried it.

[SteveM]

20. There are some competition model handguns not well-suited to kill. nt

[bossy22]

22. britain does have armed police officers

just recently they have started doing daytime patrols in certain neighborhoods. Usually though, armed officers are in Fast response vehicles driving around towns and cities, able to respond to a scene within minutes. Plus from my own trip to london, i can tell you by every historical or important political site, there are officers not only with handguns, but with submachine guns and automatic rifles guarding the place. Hell the airport had more armed officers than JFK

The truth is the unarmed bobby patrols the streets of britain with more than just his whistle and night stick. He/she patrols with the knowledge that armed police officers are available almost instantanously

[Euromutt]

27. Sometimes, the threat of force alone can achieve the desired result

Hypothetical situation: three guys come into a cafe, armed with knives and bats, and demand the contents of the till and the valuables of all customers present. A customer stands, draws a handgun from concealment, and threatens to shoot if the robbers do not drop their weapons and either leave or surrender. If the robbers are smart enough to comply, the desired result (robbery uncompleted with no injury or property loss on the part of the prospective victims) has been achieved without inflicting injury or death. Ergo, the handgun has been used for a "purpose other than to injure and kill people." Ergo, your premise is false.

[TPaine7]

33. The purpose for which the vast majority of people purchase guns,

even guns for self-defense--is not the one you give.

They have no purpose other than to injure and kill people...

A woman does not purchase a gun so that she can "injure or kill people" but so that she can defend herself, her children and her husband. Injuring and killing may SOMETIMES be necessary to achieve her goal, but that is a side effect of the gun's core purpose--protection.

If you add to that the fact that guns are used for sporting events in which no living thing is injured, your premise is soundly disproved, IMO.

Now that I have answered your question, would you return the favor and answer mine?

If guns are only useful for injuring and killing, and if injuring and killing are always wrong, do you support the removal of all guns from the planet?

That is, after all, the only conclusion most folks could reach. If item x were only useful for torturing babies, I would support the removal of all item x's from the planet and a permanent ban on producing more of item x.

[Statistical]

36. Really? I think you have no idea how much of a Police state Britain has become.

So that thing is not a gun? Good news is that he doesn't have a handgun!

[RichS]

39. yes he does.... on his right hip. nt

[SteveM]

19. Please explain "no purpose other than to injure and kill people..."

Is there something inherently wrong, immoral or unjust with this? When would the use of a handgun be justified, in your opinion? Would a semi-auto carbine (short-barreled rifle) be okay instead of a handgun? How about a shotgun? Finally, should laws be based on one's "likes" or dislikes?

[OhioChick]

2. #5 n/t

[PavePusher]

3. #10.

You should be able to own anything you can afford.

[LAGC]

4. Even tanks and war-planes?

I don't know if I'd go that far...

[demosincebirth]

5. I got room for a Sherman in my garage.

[oneshooter]

6. Both are legal to own now.

Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat/ WW2
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/GRUMMAN-F8F-2-BEARCAT/GRUMMAN-F8F-2-BEARCAT/1129907.htm

Republic P-47-D Thunderbolt/WW2
http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=10004&Manu=REPUBLIC&setype=1

Curtiss P-40K WarHawk/WW2
http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=10004&Manu=CURTISS&setype=1

1945 P-51 Mustang/WW2
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/NORTH-AMERICAN-P-51-MUSTANG/1945-NORTH-AMERICAN-P-51-MUSTANG/1147803.htm


More here: http://www.controller.com/default.asp?guid=256F1F3A60AC4B7B8BBEEC5B8B5FCDCF

All it takes is MONEY a LOT of MONEY

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[LAGC]

11. But are armaments for said tanks and planes legal to privately own?

I thought that was regulated right up there with automatic weapons.

(Oops, I forgot to add that to the poll!)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Yes, artillery is legal to own.

If it is breech laoding and has a rifled bore over .510 it would be classified as a Destructive Device and subject to the NFA. Howitzers, recoiless rifles, 30mm cannons... all can be owned. Generally the ammunition (if it contains a bursting charge) will each be covered by it's own NFA stamp and subject to propor storage laws. Laws to store explosives (grenades, artillery, rockets, etc) are ultra strict.

[oneshooter]

25. Yes they are, but like the aircraft and armour, they are expensive!

Here is a M2 Browning Heavy machine gun .50BMG caliber $45,000 and you will need six to arm your plane ( eight for the P-47)and this one would have to be reconfigured for aircraft

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=9529525&oh=671464

They are legal to own, but there is a rather anal background check, and you will need a signature from your local Sheriff ( good luck on THAT in Cali.) Oh and there is a $200 tax per weapon!


Artillery for sale. This 90mm WW2 vintage anti-tank gun is for sale, $100,000. Plus the anal check and a 2\$200 tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvncpT4EVzQ


Oh one more small detail. If you ARM your war bird it becomes, in the eyes of the law a Destructive Device. This means a separate permit, another anal BG check, and the permit MUST be obtained BEFORE the plane is armed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Oh but that Mustang makes me wanna cry.

I'm going out RIGHT NOW and buying some lottery tickets...

[oneshooter]

28. I tend to prefer the P-47

Liquid cooled engines are so easy to shut down. One round(aka"the magic BB")through the cooling lines and the engine stops! Radials are soo much heftier, and sound a LOT cooler!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Good point. I'm looking at it from a purely aesthetic viewpoint though. None prettier.

Besides, if I won the lottery and could afford the P-51, I'd be sure to avoid any and all conflicts!

Trust me on this one though, if I can EVER afford it, which is about as likely as being struck by lightning and getting a marriage proposal from Goldie Hawn on the same day, I'm going to be the proud owner of the prettiest piston driven fighter I've ever seen.

About radials, there is a surplus store not to far from where I grew up that has two engines from a B-17 that had been hit by gunfire. On the first one, half a cylinder is missing and on the other TWO cylinders are missing. According to the info posted next to the engines, both operated long enough to get the bird back across the English Channel.

[oneshooter]

37. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" n/t

[spin]

7. There are people in the U.S. who fly old jet fighters...

as private aircraft.

When Robin Parsley wants to get away from the pressure of running Endeavour Holdings, his Houston-area real estate firm, he goes and burns off some pounds—a few hundred pounds of jet fuel, that is.

***snip***

You can pick up a retired Russian MIG-15 from a former Warsaw Pact nation for a little more than the cost of two new Audi TTs—about $70,000. But there are plenty of other costs, hassles, and hazards to factor in. Buying and maintaining a good, preflown fighter jet isn’t quite like owning those Audis.

***snip***

A certified pilot can fly a military jet, but only according to strict F.A.A. guidelines. Fighters were built to wage war, and flying them safely requires the reflexes and training of a military pilot.

***snip***

To train civilians in the ways of the military pilot, schools such as the Jet Warbird Training Center in Sante Fe, New Mexico, and Flying Amigos, a Houston training center for MIG pilots, have emerged. Current F.A.A. regulations require a civilian fighter-jet pilot to have logged 1,000 hours of total flight time, to obtain an instrument rating, and to pass a test ride in the fighter jet. To keep flying with passengers, the pilot needs to log three takeoffs and landings every 90 days, the same requirements that would apply to a Cessna pilot.
http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/travel/2007/05/21/Wing-Men/

and people also own tanks and armored vehicles. Here's a listing.
http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

[virginia mountainman]

8. Ahh Yes....Those are privatly owned..

http://www.warbirdalley.com/

Tanks are privatly held too..Not to mention heavy artillery is privatly held in the US as well.

[PavePusher]

13. Why not?

It's what the Second Amendment means, and was the intent of the Founders.

[SteveM]

21. You can own them, but probably not due to the Second Amendment...

Most of the study done regarding the context of the Second concludes that "arms," as used in 2A, refers to devices projecting bullets, which are designed to be held and fired in one or both arms. This does not include crew-manned weapons, which includes most everything from a bazooka (rocket), through artillery and tanks, to warships and fighter planes. All these can be owned -- with a panoply of regulations.

Where there IS a sticking point is with true sub-machine guns and assault rifles, which meet the contextual definition of "arms," then and now, yet remain strictly controlled by the feds and states. This is a bone of contention among 2A advocates.

[tucsonlib]

16. So, You're Saying That....

....while keeping and bearing arms is every American's right, owning the highest quality, most effective, state-of-the-art weapons is a privilege reserved for the wealthy few? And that the more money you make, the more firepower you are worthy to possess?
Under your rules, the Bernie Madoffs of the world deserve the right to own nuclear bombs, because, after all, they can afford it.

Somewhere down the line the concept of "The Greater Good" needs to be brought into the equation.....

:toast:

[one-eyed fat man]

18. You don't know how right you are.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 which is the law used to regulate machine guns, silencers, short-barreled shotguns and the like, requires that an individual receive a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer that there is no objection to him acquiring the weapon.

The CLEO has complete and absolute discretion, there is no appeal. If your local sheriff won't sign, you can get a new one elected or move.

BUT, a corporation needs "no steenkin' sheriff's signatures!" There are other significant differences in the application and enforcement of NFA '34 based on whether or not the licensee is an individual versus a corporation.

"Thems that's got the gold make the rules." Is there a member of Congress who IS NOT a millionaire?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. The Sheriff/CLEO does not grant "permission" on an ATF form 4.

The only thing the signature means is that the laws in your area do not prohibit the possession of the NFA device. It is not permission, it is certification of legality. Officials in power just like to relish the idea that it is "their permission"... it is not. Even if you can't obtain a signature, there is a process to take up with the ATF to certify the legality of the item in your area when no bone-headed official in your area will sign your form. It's generally just easier for the ATF (a federal entity) to ask for verification from a local official than to scour city, county, and state laws for certification of legality of hundreds of applications every day.

Several public officials with jurisdiction in your area can sign off too.
State Trooper, Sheriff, Police Chief, District Attorney, State Attorney, Coroner, ...

[rrneck]

29. Bingo. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

17. If I can carry it or mount it on my car...

[slackmaster]

32. Other - The restrictions we have at the federal level are slightly too strict

I'd like to see the NFA registry opened up so that qualified people can acquire newly manufactured or imported automatic weapons.

NFA rules should be applied uniformly throughout the country. Anyone who isn't legally disqualified should be able to buy a machine gun, sound suppressor, short-barrelled shotgun, etc.

[PavePusher]

35. And without the asinine tax.

Though, I don't agree with the registration part, either.

Civil Rights should not be subject to 'registration'.

[Abq_Sarah]

40. Or a tax.

[DissedByBush]

41. I support absolute control

You shouldn't be shooting it if you can't control it.

[Mike K]

43. A very important control which is not listed here -

- would be a requirement for training in use, handling and legal considerations prior to owning any type of firearm. For the same reason it makes no sense to issue a driver license to someone who has not passed a driving test, allowing someone to own a gun without ensuring his/her competence is responsible for a lot of firearms accidents and misuse.

[Euromutt]

44. A reasonable point, in the abstract

The problem is that that kind of scheme has all too often been seized upon by some sheriff, police chief or mayor with an anti-gun agenda to impose a de facto gun ban by making the licensing process tortuously complex, time-consuming and expensive. That's why you're going to find a lot of gun rights organizations opposed to that kind of thing in practice.

[Endangered Specie]

45. Here is how I would do it:

Manual repeating and single shot long guns (except for pump shotguns): no restrictions (like antique firearms now) 16years old

Handguns, revolvers, semi automatic rifles, semi automatic and pump shotguns: NICS check (status quo) 18 years old

Automatic Weapons, Destructive Devices: same as NFA, registry open (status quo, removal of short barrel rifle and shotgun restrictions, those are obsolete) 21 years old

I thought it interesting to learn that originally, the NFA was going to include handguns, so SBR and SBS were included to keep people from making handguns out of rifles. As the NFA went through the legislative process, the handguns came out, but not the SBR and SBS.

[YllwFvr]

46. 100%

agreed with what the OP said. Infantry setup and felons