The Government Control of Deadly Portable Weapons 2nd Try: How Much is enough???

[Smoker]

Same question: What level of legal control of deadly portable weapons is acceptable to you in a modern liberal democracy like America.

What this post is looking for is what laws; rules restrictions would you put in place on "deadly portable weapon" ownership if you were running the show?

What the original post is looking for is your personal ideal solution and not just bitching and whining about the current laws.

I am sorry about the original threads being closed. I thought there were some interesting ideas expressed on the original thread and think it would have been ok to leave it open and just bring it back onto topic but that's life in the internet board game. So this time boys n girls lets try to keep the tank discussion focused on legal stuff like laws restricting tank ownership etc rather than technical specs and California highway use with your tank.

Cheers Smoker.

[Smoker]

Hi Guys,

C.R.Sam Quote: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No restrictions."

Again C.R.Sam please clarify. What is your definition of arms? The same list as striderteen or maybe do you include tanks like GRD or maybe you want any object like Tamara? Also what are the "people"? What are your restrictions on what people can own what arms? You need to be a little more specific about what you mean.

Jake 98c/11b Quote: "You said all you know is what you saw at the Ms Magazine site, what do they say there, I'm curious."

Don't want to speak for anyone so the best idea if you're curious is to go over to the Ms Magazine board and ask them.

Jake 98c/11b Quote: "I agree with C.R. Sam, no restrictions is the goal."

Less interested in what your future goals are than in what today if you had the final say would legally you put in place to restrict deadly portable weapons ownership in the USA. Like what do you define as "arms" and how do you define "the people"?

Jake 98c/11b "I might be persuaded to accept"

Not asking what you would be persuaded to accept but what legal restrictions you would actually put in place if it was your choice."

Yankytrash Quote: "To answer the original question, no restrictions on anything … Anything that a person can operate and defend him/herself with, and can use to protect this great country of ours, should be allowed to be privately owned without restriction, well beyond striderteen's list … How little of a compromise? Very little, in my book. Only on, sayyyyy, an international-treaty level governing the production and manufacture of certain nuclear and biological agents."

The original post is looking for more of an answer like this one from Yankytrash explaining exactly how he defines arms and restrictions etc.

Thanks for the response Yankytrach.

Striderteen Quote: "But yes, they should have those as well. I would not, however, consider them to be "portable" weapons."

I wasn't thinking of the "M1 Abrams tank" or "BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle" when I wrote the original post either but if you want to add those to your original list of "weapons on which there should be no restriction" then it's noted and thanks for the additional clarification.

Kaboom Quote: "The United States government doesn't have nearly enough control of portable deadly weapons.

Charles Shumer
Tom Diaz
Josh Sugarman
Sarah Brady
Diane Finestein
Theodore the perfect and a host of others are walking around free. They are clearly portable dangerous weapons loose on society.

Interesting definition of portable deadly weapons but how about for the purposes of this thread we keep the definition restricted to just those "portable deadly weapons" that are inanimate objects.

So how Kaboom do you define "portable deadly weapons" or "arms" and what restrictions or laws do you want to see in place?

Cheers Smoker

[Scott Conklin]

Same question: What level of legal control of deadly portable weapons is acceptable to you in a modern liberal democracy like America.

First let's get past the propaganda. Your use of the emotionally volatile term "deadly portable weapons" is an HCI-esque effort to portray in advance anyone who would support their possession as an extremist kook. No rational debate can flow forward from such propagandistic machinations. You've created an impossible scenerio...and you've done it very deliberately.

What this post is looking for is what laws; rules restrictions would you put in place on "deadly portable weapon" ownership if you were running the show?

What you're looking for is replies that you can use, here or elsewhere, to mischaracterize gun owners and Article Two of the Bill of Rights. No matter what answers are given they can, because of the aforementioned emotionally charged label, be used in the HCI propaganda and disinformation war.

What the original post is looking for is your personal ideal solution and not just bitching and whining about the current laws.

This is a restatement of the second para and as such deserves the same reply as above.

I am sorry about the original threads being closed. I thought there were some interesting ideas expressed on the original thread and think it would have been ok to leave it open and just bring it back onto topic but that's life in the internet board game. So this time boys n girls lets try to keep the tank discussion focused on legal stuff like laws restricting tank ownership etc rather than technical specs and California highway use with your tank.

Better, let's try to keep this straight and to the point: Firearms are not "deadly portable weapons". They are tools, capable of a variety of uses, some morally Right and some morally Wrong. Just like any other tools. Counter to Leftist Revisionism firearms do not exist nor were they solely developed to kill people. Survival and the hunt were as much at the root of firearms development as military desire.

I have the Right, not because of the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution but merely as a function of being a human being, to keep and bear arms. Knives, bows, guns, whatever I feel necessary to my own personal safety and defense of my property and family. If someone can show me a valid reason why one would need tanks, artillery or nuclear devices to accomplish same then I'll support their right to have such.

As is, I feel, with considerable historical and legal support, that typical personal military style sidearms are more than sufficient for my own personal welfare. I also believe that should a major crisis situation ever arise they give me more than sufficient capacity to steal larger weapons if needed, relieving me of the need to posses them myself at all times.

So, in the end I can and will own pretty much what I please, with or without the BoR and in spite of any laws you might manage to foist off on us. And as I have said before, if someone has a problem with that they are welcome to come and do something about it. Fortunately for me most of the Left who pose these carefully crafted manipulative questions have long since surrendered any responsibility for self defense and thus aren't likely to be coming after anyone, least of all me.

Have a wonderful day.

[TheBluesMan]

Thanks for giving this topic one more try.

Your question is very interesting and, it seems, intentionally obfuscatory. There are three parts to this question that deserve comment in my opinion.

What some of TFL's members believe "portable deadly weapons" means is less important than what *you* believe it means. The question is yours, so you must first define your terms so the rest of us know exactly on what we're commenting. Otherwise we could be talking about anything from sticks and rocks to RPGs and mortars.

Also, I personally will ignore the modifiers "modern liberal democracy" as they are just a distraction to the point of the question. Discussion of these terms will likely be esoteric and not add to the discussion of "portable deadly weapons," whatever that means...

Lastly, the point of your question: You want to know what legal controls are acceptable to us regarding these inanimate objects by the government. Depending on what exactly we're talking about, the answer will vary greatly; as I'm sure you noticed in the original thread.

Does that sound about right?

[0007]

The problem, 2nd Amend, is that while "they" won't come after you, "they" will more then gladly send "their" hired minions( the ever popular JBT's) after you to do whatever is necessary to make "them" feel good,safe, better, justified in their beliefs, ad neausia...

[Scott Conklin]

And your point, 0007? You may well be right, such is life. The alternative is to do what they tell me and I'm just no good at that. Fortunately, the number of people who are no good at it like me seems to be increasing.

Which is very likely the reason we see questions like this from the Smokers of the world.

[Tamara]

...to give me the giggling fits is the question "What does "the people" mean in the Second Amendment?".

The same thing "the people" means in the First and Fourth and Fifth, etcetera.

[striderteen]

My opinion (slightly modified since previous debate) is that any citizen of the United States of America should have a completely unlimited right to purchase and carry (openly or concealed) any weapon whatsoever.

This is his Constitutional right, and cannot be abrogated in any matter whatsoever (except on private property, by the owner of said private property). The goverment has no right to regulate weapons in any manner -- that prohibition includes registration and/or licensing, not just bans or purchase limits.

Weapons larger than infantry scale, such as artillery and surface-to-air missile batteries, are just as protected as infantry small-arms. While probably too expensive for individual purchase, they can and should be availiable to the militia simply by pooling of resources and purchase as a group.

I am no longer sure I would even concede control of weapons of mass destruction as a government-only thing. Frankly, I'd trust the local militia more than the federal government with any weapon, be it a slingshot or a Trident-IV intercontinental ballistic missile. That is a bit of a moot question, however, as I doubt many militias could raise the funds to purchase its own nukes.

The only legal gun regulations are those applying to non-citizens. I would limit non-citizens to weapons primarily suitable for hunting and self-defense -- that is, semi-automatic, bolt/lever/pump-action, and single-shot handguns, shotguns, and rifles. There is no valid reason for them to have military weapons, as they are not part of the militia.

The people not allowed to possess weapons would be those currently in prisons, jails, and insane asylums. However, the parole system will be much tougher as well!! They're not getting out until they can be re-accepted as law-abiding citizens!!!

[dZ]

private colonial militia arm:



private colonial arms transporter:



Modern updates:

[striderteen]

I disagree. The correct update to "Colonial Arms Transporter" is this:

[striderteen]

And the update to "private colonial militia arm" is this:

[Hunter Rose]

For me, no restriction on "arms" can be considered acceptable.

"Arms": essentially small arms. Anything fifty caliber or smaller. Would also include any melee weapon (knives, swords, axes, etc)

Not sure how I feel about things larger than fifty cal... price would be VERY prohibitive, meaning only the very wealthy could own. I can see the potential for abuse there...

[Tamara]

I am, if anything, less concerned with weapons over .50 cal.

A 105mm towed howitzer is a weapon singularly unsuited to criminal misuse. It can't really be used for holdups, a bank robbery would be easy to spot as they set the cannon up in the street after unlimbering it, and you can't murder your next door neighbor with it without causing collateral damage to your own house and waking up half the neighborhood.

If someone has the money and land necessary to actually shoot one of these things, more power to them.

[Hunter Rose]

>If someone has the money and land necessary to actually shoot one of these things, more power to them.<

Ok... so the Andrew Mc Klevy's (or whatever-his-name-is) of the world should be able to own full-scale military field pieces? Because that's what we'd end up with. Imagine that fer a sec...

[striderteen]

Then your local militia will have tanks and artillery, and be able to effectively PROTECT you like it's supposed to.

No one wants to invade a country with a good militia. Imagine the losses you'd take in urban fighting...snipers in every house, sappers up the wazoo, ambushes left and right, booby-traps galore.

[Tamara]

A lot of folks do so right now. Cannons aren't illegal; just expensive.

What are you afraid the Evil Capitalist Tools would do to you with their field pieces?

Besides, doesn't your sigline say you need bigger guns? Is this big enough?

[Marko Kloos]

Ok... so the Andrew Mc Klevy's (or whatever-his-name-is) of the world should be able to own full-scale military field pieces? Because that's what we'd end up with. Imagine that fer a sec...

There is no philosophical difference between Joe Average owning a .22, or the same guy owning a 105mm howitzer. If you can argue that he should not own the howitzer because he might harm someone unlawfully with it, you can argue the same point against his ownership of the .22. It is just a matter of degree, and once you start arguing that way, you concede that one can be deprived of weapons if the majority finds the ownership of such weapons unreasonable.

Ownserhip of an object can never be a crime, only unlawful initiation of force against other people or their property.

[Hunter Rose]

Good points, lendringser. However, as Tamara pointed out, anything over a 50 is fairly useless for personal protection.

I would have no problems with local milita "units" (how DO you describe small groups of unorganized soldiers?) having arty or tanks. However, I can see problems with everybody being "permitted", but the items in question being too expensive for "Joe Average".

YMMV

[Tamara]

...to own a Barret M-82 right now. I sure can't afford one.

You are permitted to own a belt-fed .50-cal M2. Got $25,000 lying around you don't need?

You are permitted to own a mini-gun. Six figures for one of those, not to mention that they shoot up $150 of ammo per heartbeat.

The only transferrable Mk.19 belt-fed 40mm grenade launcher just sold for an undisclosed price. Guesses range as high as $300k or more.

Of course, all these prices are artificially inflated due to FOPA '86's ban on "new machinegun production for civilians".

[striderteen]

Well, if they were totally unlicensed legal like they SHOULD be, market competition becomes a bigger factor; price goes way down, and quality goes way up!

[Gewehr98]

I kinda liked "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot", and what they used to knock a hole in that bank with!

[Smoker]

Hi Guys n Girls,

2nd Amendment Quote: "Your use of the emotionally volatile term "deadly portable weapons"

I did not mean to offend your sensibilities and please accept my most sincere apologies (hey this walking on eggshells is just like the Ms board). If it will make you happy instead of "deadly portable weapons" I would be happy to use any term that is politically correct in your personal world. Just make a suggestions to cover all the stuff your fellow Firing Line board members have come up with (see list below).

To be honest "deadly portable weapons" is a term I came up with off the top of my head and I didn't realise that it was such an offensive group of words to you.

In my defence I don't think the whole board had the same reaction to simple words. In fact if you look through the response posts to my original thread you will see that your fellow Firing Line board members define "deadly portable weapons" as everything under the sun from scissors to intercontinental ballistic missiles.

For example:

Bluetoe: "boxcutters, knives, hairspray, sharpened credit cards, carb cleaner, hairpins, knitting needles or scissors"

Striderteen: All handguns, All shotguns, All rifles, including selective-fire assault rifles, All light and medium machine guns, Hand and rifle grenades, Infantry-carried anti-tank weapons such as a bazooka, Infantry-carried surface-to-air missiles such as a FIM-92 Stinger,

GRD: artillery and crew-served machine guns, tank, & TOW

Tamara: Ownership of an "object" cannot be a crime.

Dzeanah: mortars

MeekandMild: Roman swords

C.R.Sam: No restriction. (assume this means anything like Tamara but waiting for clarification).

Jimpeel: field pieces

Yankytrash: Anything that a person can operate and defend him/herself with

Striderteen: added M1 Abrams tank & BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle & 9M117M Arkan laser-guided heavy anti-tank missile.

Ksboom: includes Charles Shumer, Tom Diaz, Josh Sugarman, Sarah Brady, Diane Finestein in his definition

Baba Louie: Daimler APC

Lendringser: 100mm HEAT warhead

Striderteen: My opinion (slightly modified since previous debate) is that any citizen of the United States of America should have a completely unlimited right to purchase and carry (openly or concealed) any weapon whatsoever (including a Trident-IV intercontinental ballistic missile.)

Hunter Rose: essentially small arms. Anything fifty caliber or smaller. Would also include any melee weapon (knives, swords, axes, etc)

dz: some kind of automatic cannon (see photo from his post) & at least two warthog tankbusters.

Striderteen: added a battleship to his list

Tamara: gave some detail on his original of any object with a 105mm towed howitzer & Mk.19 belt-fed 40mm grenade launcher.

Lendringser: expanded his list to: "Ownership of an object can never be a crime"

2nd Amendment Quote: "Have a wonderful day"

You too but then again I have ahead start; I'm nine hours ahead and in Phuket.

TheBluesMan: "The question is yours, so you must first define your terms so the rest of us know exactly on what we're commenting."

Actually you are not commenting on my opinion on ownership of "portable deadly weapons" (please insert mentally in the quotes what ever politically correct non offensive term 2nd Amendment prefers instead of PDWs). What I am interested in is what you "TheBluesMan" would put legally in place to control such objects in the USA. That's is why I didn't put up my personal definition of the term "portable deadly weapon". Your definition of what is a "portable deadly weapon" and what laws should be in place to control them are both the answers being looked for.

Just for back ground information: On the MS Magazine board there is a lot of discussion on what is wrong with the current "patriarchal society" but very little practical alternatives or realistic solutions suggested.

This to me is the same thing with TFL. When I perused your site I read a lot of complaining about the current legal laws regarding "portable deadly weapons" (sorry to offend you again 2nd Amendment) but very little about what individual Firing Line board members would replace them with if the world was their oyster so to speak.

I am really curious to see what your alternatives to the current laws are and why. Also I am curious about the differences of opinions among TFL board members on what the ideal control laws should be in each of their personally perfect worlds.

TheBluesMan: "You want to know what legal controls are acceptable to us regarding these inanimate objects by the government."

To reiterate my last point: Tell me what is personally acceptable to YOU (not US) as legal controls on "these inanimate objects".

So to start give me a list of your "inanimate objects" that I choose to very generally call (until 2nd Amendment tell me a term he doesn't find offensive) "portable deadly weapons" and what legal controls are acceptable to YOU not us (like sorry but you can't speak for everyone on the board).

Am I now being clearer?

Tamara Quote: "What never fails... ...to give me the giggling fits is the question "What does "the people" mean in the Second Amendment?" The same thing "the people" means in the First and Fourth and Fifth, etcetera."

Sorry Tamara but I don't know what "the people" for YOU means in the Second Amendment or the first, fourth, fifth etc so please tell me? You told me that you want the "Ownership of an "object" to not be a crime but didn't clarify what "people" (if you were making the laws) would be able to legally able "own and use" such an object.

striderteen Quote: "However, the parole system will be much tougher as well!! They're not getting out until they can be re-accepted as law-abiding citizens!!!"

Interesting statement but is it realistic? How are you going to determine on a practical rational basis when "they can be re-accepted as law-abiding citizens"?

Cheers to all, Smoker

[Jake 98c/11b]

Very well said Lendringser, any distinction is artificial. As Tamara said before I could, the ownership of an "object" can not be a crime. Potential is not criminal but intent is.

While I am not sure what definition Tamara uses for "the people", to me that would be all free people legaly in the united states. Those people who are currently incarcerated are not free, those under parental controle are not free (but should be able to enjoy what freedom their parents allow) and those currently locked away for being clinically insane are not free. Every one else fits into my view of "the people" as it relates to the second ammendment.

If it were up to me there would be no legal restrictions to owning any "object". The problem that some have with your "deadly personal weapons" is complex. Isn't any object used to cause damage a weapon? When you used the term deadly some would view that as implying it's only use is to cause the suffering of others. That is how the anti-gun/defense groups have used the power of language to their advantage and we can be defensive at times. I have always thought that the mind is a weapon, all else are tools. That is the only definition that really makes sense to me.


By the way, Tamara is a woman not a man. You said something about "gave some detail on his original on any object with a 105mm....", check her website and you will see that she is an attractive woman and more importantly has a quick wit and an active, intelligent mind. My guess is she reads a lot.

[Bud Helms]

Smoker:

"Sorry Tamara but I don't know what "the people" for YOU means in the Second Amendment or the first, fourth, fifth etc so please tell me? You told me that you want the "Ownership of an "object" to not be a crime but didn't clarify what "people" (if you were making the laws) would be able to legally able "own and use" such an object."

Relativism.

[David Park]

Smoker, you said, "I am really curious to see what your alternatives to the current laws are and why." The alternative would be the absence of the current laws. Why? NFA '34, GCA '68, and all following and related "gun control" law are nothing more than means for the government to restrict the freedom of, and therefore control, the citizens. There is no way to "fix" these laws, they have to be repealed completely.

Possession of "weapons," which is anything that could reasonably be used to harm another, should be denied only to people who are currently locked up (prison, mental hospital, or the like). That's it, the only governmental "deadly portable weapon" law I would want. Who should be locked up is a separate issue.

Possession of inanimate objects should not be a crime, whether those objects are handguns, cannons, or stealth bombers. However, some harardous materials, including chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, are not really inanimate, since a pile of anthrax powder or a bar of uranium 235 can kill you by just sitting on your desk. These could probably be regulated, but not necessarily banned. You can build a nuke in your basement, but you might have trouble actually arming it.

I think everyone has been pretty clear on their positions. Certainly their descriptions are much clearer than the current "gun control" laws.