Exclusive Poll: What would your preferred United States firearm policy be?

I voted for only manually chambered rifles and shotguns because I keep them for predator problems...ranchers, farmers, hunters can all still kill an elk or a suffering horse or cougar without automatic weapons...if they can't, they need to go back to the shooting range...ultimately I'd like to see a world without the need for them...that's just wishful thinking at this point. I think handguns are an urban problem...I've never felt any need for one.

 

I chose "no limitations" because there wasn't an option to allow the purchase of certain weapons with extra paperwork and approval. Currently, you can buy a machine gun if you go through all the proper channels. It can't be a new machine gun, it has to be one made before the ban, but you can still buy one if you're willing to spend a buttload of cash.

Also, just so people are aware, this is a semi-auto rifle:



I have one. My dad has one that originally belonged to my late grandfather. If you ban all semi-auto rifles, this would be an illegal firearm.

This is also a semi-auto rifle:



This and many like it were carried on the beaches of Normandy. This is an assault rifle. It would be banned if you outlawed semi-auto rifles. Also, this is one of the few guns that actually uses a "clip."

 

By the by, you can also buy a tank and use it to piss off your HOA for a mere $600k.

 

Doesn't matter, nothing will change.

 

Ha! Correct. Stripper clip to be precise.
I remember when you asked me, several years ago now, why I called .45 magazine a clip. Well that was common in that day, both weapons using the "clip"
Magazine became common terminology later when the stripper clip faded into history. Although I think you were technical correct, magazine was the proper term.

 

And if I had an extra $600k laying around, I would TOTALLY buy one of those. I love WWII militaria. So cool.

And if some crooked local sheriff arrests your son, you can dole out some good old fashioned armored justice.

 

I am ok with the 2nd amendment as interpreted by the court today as the policy of the US gun ownership.

 

Who Knows. How about you if it stays the same?

 

Not exactly.
You can read here for more insight.
http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/here-we-go-agian-never-waste-an-incident.327490/

 

Isn't needing a permit to purchase those types of weapons an "infringement" ?

I chose #5.

If you feel like you need a gun IMHO you're living in unreasonable fear.

Fear of people who aren't coming to take material possessions from you (take my material and I don't believe that deserves a death sentence) or a government who isn't coming to go to war with you.

Take it how you want to.

 

Here's the thing - our friend @MarAzul loves the word "infringe" but "militia" and "well-regulated" aren't as important to him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, which one presumes also loves the Constitution, knows that you can't just willy-nilly pick and choose certain parts, words, or phrases when analyzing the document.

And yes Denny, I know what they said in Heller, but at least they looked at the whole amendment and its history and not just one word.

 

Oh really! Well read the Majority opinion here, the link to Cornell's site. I have some small issue with it, but it does put the proper priority on why we have the 2nd amendment.
http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/here-we-go-agian-never-waste-an-incident.327490/

I also just happen to take notice, well more that 50 years ago when visiting the Smithsonian and the display for Madison.
One of the Item on display was Madison's copy of the, Law of Nations sometimes referred to as Natural law. It was open to the page which discribes the right of people to defend themselves with force of arms. Madison, as was his practice, had notes in the margin of the book. Rather a clear indicator of his noting special interest. Of course they would not let you look through the book, it surely would not survive, but they did have photos of other pages with Madison's notes in the margin. One was of the page that describes, Natural Born Citizen. The only place I know that does give a definition of this term.

As you know, Madison used the term Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution, and he did author the 2nd amendment. I think you can see, Scalia did get the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

About two years ago, my oldest Grandson was going to visit the Smithsonian. I mention to him to note this stuff in Madison's display. But he could no longer find it. It sure seems a shame. Real history, gone!

 

Fair enough. Of course this was important to the founders. It's the second of the amendments after all.

That said, I am just of the belief that the Constitution is a living document and must be reinterpreted with changing times. Others, like Scalia, disagree. I am certain that when they spoke of the right to bear arms, they never imagined, or would want, children having the right to buy weapons of war.

 

Tell that to all your boys in the hood
Not every person with a gun is a republican buuuuut that wouldn't fit the narrative you are trying to push

 

I don't have "boys in the hood"...

 

Honestly if it makes everybody shut up just fucking ban semis and autos. I am soooo sick and tired of hearing about this nonsense just ban them. Then another shooting will occur with an AR-15 and everybody who complained will be confused. There are more guns than people in this country. you try and sweep them up, a lot will still end up on the street or black market for sale.