44 replies to this topic

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

We have gun control in Oz and there is no harm in background checking to make sure the former mental patient can get a gun.  

[hatecraft]

Civilian usage does include fully automatic weapons.

[Stellar]

I dont think I fully grasp this line of reasoning. If the second amendment is about defending against tyranny, why are people not upset about rocket launchers and such being Restricted?

[aztek]

CRIPTIC CHAMELEON, on 13 February 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

We have gun control in Oz and there is no harm in background checking to make sure the former mental patient can get a gun.  

1 the thread is about usa, not oz. what you have down there is irrelavant to usa, OZ IS NOT USA
2 we alreday have background checks, those few loopholes as private sale are blown out of proportion, gangs don't buy guns from those ppl, plus, everyone that sells a gun privatly knows who he sold it to, you make copy of their id. if you don't you either extreamly dumb, or a criminal. either way, we have not seen many, if at all cases wher eweapons used in crimes were bought that way. so it is irrelavant as well

[Uncle Sam]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Why doesn't civilian usage include fully automatic weapons?

Who gets to draw that line - Constitutionally?




And yet - I don't see the government trying to ban assault rifles from being used by the National Guard.

But that's well-organised militia's for you, I guess.

The national guard was never a civilian militia.

http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

Edited by Uncle Sam, 13 February 2013 - 10:36 PM.

[Tiggs]

Uncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

The national guard was never a civilian militia.

http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

What do you mean by Civilian militia?

[F3SS]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Why doesn't civilian usage include fully automatic weapons?

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...

Stellar, on 13 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

I dont think I fully grasp this line of reasoning. If the second amendment is about defending against tyranny, why are people not upset about rocket launchers and such being Restricted?

I'll lump machine guns in here even though they're legal but here's my reasoning.... As for machine guns I imagine the potential for collateral damage to property and persons is far greater than one bullet per trigger pull. I never fired a machine gun but if not well trained I could see a person pulling the trigger and spraying 30 bullets up, down, left and right before letting go. Not exactly ideal when you have thin walls and ceilings with family in the house or neighbors close by or kids outside or upstairs. So average joes across the country see a lot of redundancy in using an M16 incase a thief breaks in the house.
Personal protection should have reasonable limits yet they're not restricted because there are many ways to still enjoy the excitement of a machine gun if you've got the money. The permit process is lengthy, so I hear, but the cost of shooting a machine gun for only a few minutes could extend to hundreds of dollars. Plus, I don't think you can just carry them around. The people who have them are either ex military or collectors and those who actually shoot them do well enough to have plenty of F-U money.
Even worse, imagine a situation like the theater shooting and someone in the crowd, by law, could carry an Uzi, which is automatic, and decided to save the day and take out the shooter. He then shoots the Uzi toward the perpetrator, someone bumps him in the panic, he briefly loses control of himself, his finger is lodged and suddenly 60 bullets spray across the public crowd. However, a semi auto gun with 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazines are far easier to control and only as dangerous as a gun with a 7 round magazine since all only shoot one bullet per trigger pull therefore far less likely to cause collateral damage.

As for rocket launchers. Same thing basically. Collateral damage. Unintended damages. You would be foolish to use a rocket launcher or personal protection in your home. You'd probably kill yourself and destroy the home you're trying to protect.
In public you'd be a freaking menace if you thought using a rocket launcher was in any way sensible. Same reasoning with nukes. You want to hit your target. Not blow up a building or a city. It amazes me these things need to be explained.

As for overthrowing tyranny... I say anything goes because at that point you are likely in a war and rules don't mean much in war. Still, there are common sense limits I would hope folks would take in such a situation. Especially nukes. I may support wiping out Washington DC in a time like that but not in the most literal sense. It's a fight to take your country back, not obliterate it.
Same thing for foreign wars though. Nukes are frowned upon for their collateral damage. They do way more than kill the enemy.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 13 February 2013 - 11:38 PM.

[Uncle Sam]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

What do you mean by Civilian militia?

It is a militia formed by the civilians. These groups are not controlled by the government, but they are registered so the governments know they exist. The reason they are registered, so we know none of them are ill-intent.

[Tiggs]

Uncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

It is a militia formed by the civilians. These groups are not controlled by the government, but they are registered so the governments know they exist. The reason they are registered, so we know none of them are ill-intent.

So - are they State trained?

Edit: And by that - I mean trained by the individual states.

Edited by Tiggs, 13 February 2013 - 11:46 PM.
Because the word State is sometime confusing

[Stellar]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...



I'll lump machine guns in here even though they're legal but here's my reasoning.... As for machine guns I imagine the potential for collateral damage to property and persons is far greater than one bullet per trigger pull. I never fired a machine gun but if not well trained I could see a person pulling the trigger and spraying 30 bullets up, down, left and right before letting go. Not exactly ideal when you have thin walls and ceilings with family in the house or neighbors close by or kids outside or upstairs. So average joes across the country see a lot of redundancy in using an M16 incase a thief breaks in the house.
Personal protection should have reasonable limits yet they're not restricted because there are many ways to still enjoy the excitement of a machine gun if you've got the money. The permit process is lengthy, so I hear, but the cost of shooting a machine gun for only a few minutes could extend to hundreds of dollars. Plus, I don't think you can just carry them around. The people who have them are either ex military or collectors and those who actually shoot them do well enough to have plenty of F-U money.
Even worse, imagine a situation like the theater shooting and someone in the crowd, by law, could carry an Uzi, which is automatic, and decided to save the day and take out the shooter. He then shoots the Uzi toward the perpetrator, someone bumps him in the panic, he briefly loses control of himself, his finger is lodged and suddenly 60 bullets spray across the public crowd. However, a semi auto gun with 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazines are far easier to control and only as dangerous as a gun with a 7 round magazine since all only shoot one bullet per trigger pull therefore far less likely to cause collateral damage.

As for rocket launchers. Same thing basically. Collateral damage. Unintended damages. You would be foolish to use a rocket launcher or personal protection in your home. You'd probably kill yourself and destroy the home you're trying to protect.
In public you'd be a freaking menace if you thought using a rocket launcher was in any way sensible. Same reasoning with nukes. You want to hit your target. Not blow up a building or a city. It amazes me these things need to be explained.

So it's not against the constitution, according to you, to restrict certain weapons in the interest of safety (minimizing collateral damage)?

Quote

As for overthrowing tyranny... I say anything goes because at that point you are likely in a war and rules don't mean much in war. Still, there are common sense limits I would hope folks would take in such a situation. Especially nukes. I may support wiping out Washington DC in a time like that but not in the most literal sense. It's a fight to take your country back, not obliterate it.
Same thing for foreign wars though. Nukes are frowned upon for their collateral damage. They do way more than kill the enemy.

Yeah, but then what's the point of the 2nd ammendment? I thought everyone was up in arms about it because its there for overthrowing the enemy, whether foreign or domestic... that they need those weapons to fight a tyrant government if needed. If you're saying that it doesnt matter that, regardless of the 2nd ammendment, certain types of weapons are currently restricted because, in the event of a war against a tyrannical government, people will get those weapons, then the whole argument of keeping weapons now in defense of a portential future tyrannical government becomes irrelevent.

Edited by Stellar, 13 February 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[Uncle Sam]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

So - are they State trained?

Edit: And by that - I mean trained by the individual states.

They are not trained by states... they are formed by citizens. Most militias are retired marines or soldiers who form a militia to continue upholding their oath to protect the constitution.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...

New fully automatic weapons have been banned for public sale in the US since 1986. The weapons you're talking about are weapons that were bought prior to that ban, and which now have to go through a registered process to change hands.

What I find interesting is that very few people (though there are some) are asking for automatic weapons to be allowed to be sold to the general public. From where I'm standing - it looks like pretty much the same basic issue - namely: If the government aren't allowed to place restrictions on semi-automatics... then the government shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on fully automatics either.

[F3SS]

Stellar, on 13 February 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

So it's not against the constitution, according to you, to restrict certain weapons in the interest of safety (minimizing collateral damage)?



Yeah, but then what's the point of the 2nd ammendment? I thought everyone was up in arms about it because its there for overthrowing the enemy, whether foreign or domestic... that they need those weapons to fight a tyrant government if needed. If you're saying that it doesnt matter that, regardless of the 2nd ammendment, certain types of weapons are currently restricted because, in the event of a war against a tyrannical government, people will get those weapons, then the whole argument of keeping weapons now in defense of a portential future tyrannical government becomes irrelevent.

To answer the first question--- I can't say it's constitutional but some things just make sense. You can't hurt a lot of people and damage a lot of property with a gun so far as accidents are concerned. I'm sure there's an exception or two but it's not Hollywood and one bullet can only do so much damage. Have an accident with a rocket launcher or a grenade and unless you are alone in a wide open field or desert you're going to hurt more than yourself.

Well that's another good question with no simple answer but a couple hundred million people with a handgun is pretty formidable even an entire military was against us. And yes those bigger weapons will appear because somewhere someone has them and military defectors that joined with the people will bring something with them.  But it's not irrelevant. We must keep them as a deterrent. We must keep them to instill fear into our government and other enemies. We don't want something crazy to happen but if we are disarmed the likely hood that something crazy happens increases greatly.
As I said it isn't an easy question but if you think you finally have your gotcha moment against folks like me you are wrong.

Seriously Stellar, I think you do get it. I think by now you really understand the reasonings. I've seen you post in other matters and you are sensible. You don't need to nitpick me because we've been adversaries on this matter. I don't mind that you don't see the need for 30 round magazines but I'd like you to finally admit you understand the second amendment or at least see why we hold it in such high regards.

[Tiggs]

Uncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

They are not trained by states... they are formed by citizens. Most militias are retired marines or soldiers who form a militia to continue upholding their oath to protect the constitution.

Interesting. I thought militia's were supposed to be trained by the state, with state-appointed officers.

In fact - that's what I thought the national guard was, more or less.

So - are there no militia's at State level, anymore?

[F3SS]

Tiggs, on 14 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

New fully automatic weapons have been banned for public sale in the US since 1986. The weapons you're talking about are weapons that were bought prior to that ban, and which now have to go through a registered process to change hands.

What I find interesting is that very few people (though there are some) are asking for automatic weapons to be allowed to be sold to the general public. From where I'm standing - it looks like pretty much the same basic issue - namely: If the government aren't allowed to place restrictions on semi-automatics... then the government shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on fully automatics either.

1986 machine gun or not it's still a machine gun. Honestly I don't mind the lack of machine guns. My neighbor could have 50 guns each with hundred round clips but in the event of an accident and a bullet heads towards my house the odds are slim that it'll be right where I am sitting. Now if a machine guns goes off accidentally, however that might happen is regardless, unless it's mounted in a vice it isn't going to hit the same spot twice. There may be dozens of bullets heading my way in various directions.
As a sensible person I can not see a valid argument on the need for an automatic weapon. However, America is about the pursuit of happiness, not needs. If you have the means and the right locations to enjoy such toys I say have at it. Don't mistake me being uncomfortable with a machine gun next door with me wanting the rights to have one hindered. I'm uncomfortable with every teenager in town driving a car but such is life.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 14 February 2013 - 12:19 AM.