The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[RZ1029]

Well, the topic really says it all. The 2nd Amendment, in the United States Constitution, states, "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."

 

My questions for you are, as follows:

1) Should this include automatic weapons? If so, do you think the current restrictions are ok or do they need some change? If so, what?

2) Handgun regulation. Purchasing, registration, et cetera. (Not concealed carry, specificly, that's covered in a different topic a few pages back, but feel free to mention it.)

3) Open carry. Is that covered in the "bear Arms" or not?

4) Gun control outside the United States. I don't know much about this, as I've never brought a gun with me in the two times I've left the country. If any of our international friends would like to chime in here, I'd greatly appreciate the education. I do believe Europe as a whole has stricter gun control, but I could be incorrect. I'm not going to pretend I'm some all-knowing gun guy.

5) Oh, I almost forgot! I know there are some laws (which I am sketchy on) regarding the ownership of firearms by convicted Felons. Thoughts?

[Chaosblade02]

Right to bear arms means exactly that, and it doesn't say anything about excluding certain types of firearms. Even though they couldn't see into the future and the development of automatic weapons. Some citizen militias in the past had cannons, and it was perfectly legal. The media today, does nothing but politically assassinate citizen militias today, calls them extreme right wing, Nazis, etc, some are, but others are not, but they all get thrown in the same box.

 

I don't think convicted felons should be able to own firearms. Criminals waive their right to vote, and right to bear arms, and I agree with this.

[Balagor]

As a European I can tell you, that you better let your gun stay at home, should you come visit us. Weapon policies here are strict. I speak for Western Continental Europe alone, since I do not know the rules for Eastern European countries. Those being a member of EU have strict laws. The rules can however vary a lttle from country to country.

 

Average rules are:

 

You can own a shotgun for hunting, and for that you will in most EU countries need gun practice and a license.

 

Police have hand guns, and automatic weapons for severe crisis.

 

As a private you can NOT own a hand gun or any other weapon, except as for collection. You will still need a license, and the weapon most NEVER leave your adress with out being packed away in its original box. You can only transport it for a reason (exhibitions, etc) and you most bring the license.

[RZ1029]

Average rules are:

 

You can own a shotgun for hunting, and for that you will in most EU countries need gun practice and a license.

 

As a private you can NOT own a hand gun or any other weapon, except as for collection. You will still need a license, and the weapon most NEVER leave your adress with out being packed away in its original box. You can only transport it for a reason (exhibitions, etc) and you most bring the license.

 

You mentioned a shotgun, but what about long rifles? Such as, say, a 30-30 or similar rifle for hunting?

 

And a hand gun, is it just the gun, or is ammunition allowed as well?

 

@Chaos, I'm right there with you, but I think there are some things that can be allowed. Like, I wouldn't object to the registration of firearms. However, as always, the only people who follow the law are the legal gun owners. I doubt drug dealers with AK-47s registered theirs with the ATF, while I have to pay $200+ a year just to own a fully-automatic AR-15 variant.

Edited December 18, 2010 by RZ1029

[Balagor]

Average rules are:

 

You can own a shotgun for hunting, and for that you will in most EU countries need gun practice and a license.

 

As a private you can NOT own a hand gun or any other weapon, except as for collection. You will still need a license, and the weapon most NEVER leave your adress with out being packed away in its original box. You can only transport it for a reason (exhibitions, etc) and you most bring the license.

 

You mentioned a shotgun, but what about long rifles? Such as, say, a 30-30 or similar rifle for hunting?

 

And a hand gun, is it just the gun, or is ammunition allowed as well?

 

@Chaos, I'm right there with you, but I think there are some things that can be allowed. Like, I wouldn't object to the registration of firearms. However, as always, the only people who follow the law are the legal gun owners. I doubt drug dealers with AK-47s registered theirs with the ATF, while I have to pay $200+ a year just to own a fully-automatic AR-15 variant.

 

Oh, here in DK, where I come from, we have riffle hunting too. If I understand the second question correct, no, we can´t have ammo either. As a matter of fact we can not have a knife more than 2,5 " in public. Even in the car it can be a problem.

This is the land of no weapons. So is most of EU

[RZ1029]

2.5"... wow. I think I have a few pocket knives bigger than that.

 

That being said, I read on a random non-offical website that the EU actually has a higher crime rate than the US. Your violent crimes (murder, etc) are lower, but as a whole, crime is higher. I'm not sure whether this is true or not, and I'm having difficulty confirming it via Interpol or any other sort of official source, so I'm hesitant to take it as a fact.

 

EDIT: And yes, you understood the question perfectly.

Edited December 18, 2010 by RZ1029

[marharth]

I am kind of a left wing libertarian in a way.

 

I believe that freedom is more important then safety in ALL situations.

 

That being said, I don't like gun regulation that much. I think you should be able to keep a damn rpg in your house as long as its not used.

 

Let me explain further... Sometimes people need to have a revolution. How are we supposed to fight against a oppressive government with gun power 3 times as strong as ours?

 

The only reason I don't like gun control is because I don't like the idea of not being able to fight against your government.

 

I do not think guns make a individual safer at all. In fact I think guns make people more dangerous, and make it less safe. As I said above though, I think its more important to have weapons to be able to rebel, then it is to have safety for a individual person.

 

This is one of the only things I agree with the right wing on. My views really go around freedom. That's why I don't like the death penalty or prison, it makes people less free. That's why I don't like gun control, and that's why I don't like hate laws.

[RZ1029]

I don't like the ideas of explosives, but simply for the extreme safety risk they can pose to any untrained individuals. Now, if the DOD wants to start offering bomb squad classes to the public, I'd have no problem. I am an advocate of SAFE use of ANY 'weapon' for local uses (IE: Self-defense, hunting, et cetera). Mostly for the reason you stated. I want to know that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

I believe every American, barring a felon, has the right to bear arms simply for the fact that, should it become necessary, we have a duty to fulfill. However, I would like to think that, were it to ever get that bad, at least some of the military would side with the revolt. Similarly, though, I intend to protect myself and my rights. Robber? Give it your best go, but don't take it personally when I put a 9mm in your face.

 

The only reason I exclude felons is because I believe, in almost every case, they have done something so ethically reprehensible that I would never trust them with a lethal weapon. Now, just to clarify, although a felony can be "aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug use/sales, grand theft, robbery, murder, rape, and vandalism on federal property", I wouldn't classify a drug user, or a vandal a felon, just perhaps questionably intelligent, or smarter than the rest of us.

 

Whenever I think about the phrase 'a polite society is an armed society' I go back to an old(ish) movie, War Games. Near the very ending, when Joshua, the computer, had run through every single possible strategy of 'Thermonuclear War', the only response was, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

[Aurielius]

I believe every American, barring a felon, has the right to bear arms simply for the fact that, should it become necessary, we have a duty to fulfill. However, I would like to think that, were it to ever get that bad, at least some of the military would side with the revolt.

Though my support for the 2nd Amendment is well known and being a staunch Constitutionalist I believe in the intent of our founding father's being followed. But...the big but...the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic, so if your revolt is against that oath don't expect a lot of military help. Most of all of us take the oath very seriously. Only a government that was in direct violation and abrogation of the constitution would garner any military support at all, a dilemma that I sincerely hope we never face.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Aurielius

[Vindekarr]

I have a thing for wood furnished longarms.

 

I've got an old, very old, Italian made firelock on my wall, it's had the mechanism completely removed-I dont own or possess the mechanism, but it's such a beautiful device that I keep it as a decoration. it was cheap too, since it was basicaly a metal pole with some wood around it, but it's a very elegant shape, and was hand scrimshawed.

 

I dont think there should be any restriction on items like that, my firelock is about five grand worth of metal flagpole, it'll never fire again, and even if it could, reloading would take me nearly a minute.

 

Semi automatics? I think it should be done by calibre and modifyabilty. I think weapons such as the Glock-18, Glock-21, SigSauer P-226, Berreta BM-9, and other high calibre, conceilable, military style handguns should be restricted to those that have been screened and trained to use them safely. The reason being that modified, these weapons have the potential to become real killing machines, they may be civilian legal, but they're all carried by various military, police, and in the 'Sig's case, espionage services.

 

Magnums and older style firearms? Again, I dont see the problem. A training course should be mandatory, but that's as much to ensure that a valuable historic relic isnt broken, as much as anything else.

 

Large Calibre long arms? I think these are OK. Because there is a reason you'd have one, and murdering people is not that reason. Hunting weapons like 3-0-6 rifles should, SHOULD, be legal, because farmers often need these to protect livestock, and hunters arent going to be able to take their prey with anything less. Likewise for hunting style optics, this should be legal, those that buy these have a good reason to.

 

Assault weapons? time to draw the line. I dont think civilians chould be able to posess military spec 5x56/7x62+ automatic weapons. We Australians know well what happens when a mentaly ill man with nothing to lose gets his claws on an AK-47. Dozens died in Port Augusta when that last happened here. If modified, perhaps, but I dont think giving an AK-47 or AR-15 to every Tom Dick And Harry that can afford one is a good idea.

 

Heavy arms? Why WOULD you want civilians able to own this sort of firepower? Honestly, where, in ordninary life, would a civilian need a 7X62 MM machinegun? In some states of the USA< it's legal to own flamethrowers, RPGs, miniguns, and pretty much anything... without a permit. This is where even I, a licenced shooter, think the line should be drawn and enforced rigorously.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Vindekarr