How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[Axiom_Blade]

I'll ask again, since last time nobody replied.
1. Do you think that there should be limits on what types of guns can be owned?
2. If so, what limits, and why?

Virtually nobody wants to ban all guns, so the Second Amendment is quite safe.
The argument is over which guns may be sold, and to whom.

 

[GreyICE]

So there's a limited number of automatic weapons that are available? New ones aren't made?

New ones cannot be legally sold. In fact, according to a(n absurd) Supreme Court Ruling, you can't even create a fully automatic weapon, using your own tools, with no intention to sell it or use it in a crime (they justified this under the bloody Interstate Commerce section, which is a joke).

Some of us think that's ridiculous, given the history of automatic weapons in crime use in this country, but that's another discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

1. Do you think that there should be limits on what types of guns can be owned?

Not really. I don't have much problem with tracking purchases of firearms, and stuff like background checks, but I don't really see bans on ownership of guns for law-abiding citizens as doing much good. Note that an RPG is not a gun.

 

[senorpogo]

New ones cannot be legally sold. In fact, according to a(n absurd) Supreme Court Ruling, you can't even create a fully automatic weapon, using your own tools, with no intention to sell it or use it in a crime (they justified this under the bloody Interstate Commerce section, which is a joke).

I knew an individual owner couldn't alter a weapon to make it automatic, but I thought manufacturers could make new ones. Now I know.

 

[senorpogo]

Not really. I don't have much problem with tracking purchases of firearms, and stuff like background checks, but I don't really see bans on ownership of guns for law-abiding citizens as doing much good. Note that an RPG is not a gun.

I second this.

 

[robeeb]

Very informative post. Welcome aboard.



So there's a limited number of automatic weapons that are available? New ones aren't made?

GreyICE is correct. In 1986 there was an omnibus crime bill passed that prevents any new automatic weapons from being transfered to qualified individuals after the date the bill was passed. It also prevents having a gunsmith or knowledgeable citizen from converting an existing semi auto to full auto. It was legal to get a tax stamp and permission from the BATF in order to convert a weapon to full auto.

In 1986 there were approximately 400,000 legally tranferable guns. Today, there are still those same 400,000 guns in the "Pool". No new production guns or conversions can ever be added to that pool. So, there is a finite number of guns, and the prices have gone through the roof since 1986.

 

[senorpogo]

Thanks for the education. Seems rather ludicrous to me. And despite these regulations, the gun control types keep on railing.

Kind of related question: I realize CCW rules are determined by states. Do any states allow an owner to carry an automatic weapon, one of those 400,000? Is there any place where you can legally pack an Uzi?

 

[robeeb]

Thanks for the education. Seems rather ludicrous to me. And despite these regulations, the gun control types keep on railing.

Kind of related question: I realize CCW rules are determined by states. Do any states allow an owner to carry an automatic weapon, one of those 400,000? Is there any place where you can legally pack an Uzi?

Most states that allow concealed weapons permits don't have any specific limits as to what type of firearm you can carry concealed. That being said, a registered full auto is not a practical, or safe gun to conceal and use for self defense.

 

[senorpogo]

Most states that allow concealed weapons permits don't have any specific limits as to what type of firearm you can carry concealed. That being said, a registered full auto is not a practical, or safe gun to conceal and use for self defense.

Agreed. I was just curious.

 

[dudalb]

Not really. I don't have much problem with tracking purchases of firearms, and stuff like background checks, but I don't really see bans on ownership of guns for law-abiding citizens as doing much good. Note that an RPG is not a gun.

I third that. The NRA's hostility to any real monitoring of Gun Sales is one reason I am not a member (that and I think a lot of their over the top rhetoric hurts more then helps).

I knew an individual owner couldn't alter a weapon to make it automatic, but I thought manufacturers could make new ones. Now I know.

From a practical viewpoint, however, it isn't that hard to change a semi auto/self loading weapon into a fully automatic one. If you have a halfway decent set of tools in your garage you probably have all the tools you need.

 

[IXP]

In the recent Heller case, the court split on whether or not the DC gun ban infringed upon the 2nd ammendment. But both the ruling and the decent agreed that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual, not a collective, right. Do you need further explanation?

I am happy to see that you agree with me. The decent justices dissented in this ruling.

IXP

 

[GreyICE]

I am happy to see that you agree with me. The decent justices dissented in this ruling.

No, despite my displeasure with the nature of this court, I think for once they finally got it right. The DC ban was absurd, a slap in the face to the 2nd amendment, and a straight up challenge to the constitution.

It went the way of the brilliant bills sticking creationism in the schools or endorsing prayer before government functions. Bye, bye, little absurdity, flutter off to the land where stupid stuff goes to die. Hopefully DOMA, the Patriot Act, and the DMCA will join you there some day.

 

[volatile]

We did not get to be the greatest nation on Earth by looking to the rest of the world to show us how to run our own country. If anything we are setting the examples that the rest of the world ought to be following.

By what objective metric are you the "greatest nation on earth"? There are countries that are healthier, more educated, happier, have greater parity of incomes, have longer life spans. The USA has the greatest GDP, but that seems vastly flawed as a comparative measure of deciding "the best".

“Innocent until proven guilty.” That's a major principle upon which our justice system is based. We don't properly treat someone like a criminal until he has proven himself to be a criminal. Apparently, you live in a world in which everyone is to be treated as a criminal, or at least as a “potential criminal”; and to have his freedoms abridged as deemed necessary to keep him in check.

Not at all. I agree wholeheartedly that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I just wanted to point out that Zigurat's assertion that not enough "good guys" were armed, and that too many "bad guy's" were, was entirely illogical, precisely because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Every single bad guy, those guys Ziggurat thinks have too much fire-power, was once a good guy legally entitled to arm himself to the teeth. The very distinction he's trying to make, between good guys and bad guys, is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Leftus]

This places the responsibility on the gun companies, instead of lawmakers. It doesn't infringe the Second Amendment.

What do you think about this? Is it worth a shot?
(haha, sorry)

In the same manner as government putting restrictions on the composition of newsprint, keyboards or megaphones in order to prevent their use as designed, this would be an infringement of rights.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just wanted to point out that Zigurat's assertion that not enough "good guys" were armed, and that too many "bad guy's" were, was entirely illogical, precisely because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Uh, no. You're the one with the logic problem, not me. The fact that we can't know a priori who is a bad guy and who isn't may present an obstacle to creating a situation where the good guys are more armed and the bad guys are less, but that says nothing about the desirability of having such a situation. Furthermore, it's really not an obstacle at all to achieving the second part (more armed good guys) in practice, and bad guys get guns whether or not they're legally entitled to do so, so gun control doesn't even help much with the first part.

 

[IXP]

No, despite my displeasure with the nature of this court, I think for once they finally got it right. The DC ban was absurd, a slap in the face to the 2nd amendment, and a straight up challenge to the constitution.

No. Saying that a group of men in 1776 had all the wisdom and forsight to dictate what is reasonable today is absurd. The clause is ambiguous. It needs to be revisited, but it never will because of paranoids who think they need a gun to protect themselves.

IXP

p.s. I wasn't talking to you, it was a little joke about Ziggurat's word usage error.

 

[IXP]

Ummm... I don't plan on shooting anyone, but if I do it's going to be someone who is presenting an immediate threat to my life.

Yeah, right, and there is no chance that you might be mistaken. If guns had an "undo" key, I would not be so vehemently against them.

IXP

 

[Drudgewire]

Yeah, right, and there is no chance that you might be mistaken. If guns had an "undo" key, I would not be so vehemently against them.

IXP

Someone's in my living room at 2 am, they're a bad guy. It's not until they advance on me after that they're a dead bad guy.

I'm well-trained, shoot all the time, and take safety very seriously. I can't guarantee I'll "be mistaken" any more OR LESS than I can guarnatee I'll never kill someone with my car. But if I'm ever in the situation where I felt I had to pull a gun, "being mistaken" is the possibility the other guy has put me in.

Again, be vehemently against guns all you want. That begins and ends with you. Don't want one, don't get one. I want them, I have them. We all win.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. Saying that a group of men in 1776 had all the wisdom and forsight to dictate what is reasonable today is absurd.

Accepting that premise doesn't mean we can discard what was written. If we are to be a nation of laws, we must abide by the constitution or change it - simply ignoring it out of convenience is no solution.

The clause is ambiguous.

Apparently all 9 justices thought it was sufficiently clear that it protects an individual right, not a collective right.

It needs to be revisited, but it never will because of paranoids who think they need a gun to protect themselves.

Some people do need a gun to protect themselves. Blacks in the south in the pre-civil rights era were a case in point (as I already mentioned, the KKK was pro-gun control for rather obvious reasons), but even today, if you live in a high-crime area, it is no help to you for guns to be outlawed. If someone is in the process of breaking into your home, the police are of little help, ESPECIALLY in poor neighborhoods where response times are frequently not rapid. The rich can always afford to hire protection even with strict gun control, it is the poor who must protect themselves, and taking away their ability to do so is not wise, admirable, noble, progressive, or liberal. It is eletist, discriminatory, authoritarian, and foolish.

 

[robeeb]

No. Saying that a group of men in 1776 had all the wisdom and forsight to dictate what is reasonable today is absurd. The clause is ambiguous. It needs to be revisited, but it never will because of paranoids who think they need a gun to protect themselves.

IXP

p.s. I wasn't talking to you, it was a little joke about Ziggurat's word usage error.

Around 8 years ago I had to use a firearm for self defense. The incident involved two men armed with a knife, and a baseball bat. They were going to stab/beat me to death because I unknowingly parked in their reserved parking spot at a local apartment complex while visiting a friend who lived in the complex. They absolutely would not listen to reason, nor did they care to accept my apology for unknowingly taking their spot.

I realized that I could not talk them down, or talk my way out of the situation peacefully. I drew my handgun and told them to drop their weapons and back up or I would shoot them both. The sight of a loaded weapon was enough for them, and I am thankful to this day that I didn't have to fire. It turns out, these clowns were running a Meth lab in an abandoned building down the street and using their apartment as a distribution point. They were both convicted felons with multiple previous arrests for committing violent crimes. They were both high on meth when they confronted me and threatened my life.


The police told me in no uncertain terms that they would have beaten me within and inch of my life, or kill me. The judge and prosecutor agreed. They now reside in a federal prison in Arizona. I'm not a "paranoid who thinks he needs a gun to defend himself". Nor are the thousands of other people who carry a gun for self defense.