Exclusive Poll: What would your preferred United States firearm policy be? (1 Viewer)

[PtldPlatypus]

We tiptoe around this a lot, but I think it might be nice to have a place to just put our desired firearm policy out there. Now, I know that there's no way I'm going to get everyone's preferences in a 10-option poll (I'm actually only putting 8 options up to leave room for a distinction that I missed), and none of these address background checks, or registration, or licensing, or quantity, or buying age, or concealed-/open-carry, or any of the other ancillary issues related to the 2nd amendment. This is just asking about the basic question of what you think should be legal and what shouldn't.

Let me know if there's anything that I should add to the poll.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Personally, (and if this is a thread hijack I apologize), but I think there's a difference between "who can buy", "what can be bought", and "where the legally-bought weapon can be carried".

Let's say for grins that I choose #1 "No limitations". It seems to me that if another law is "weapons cannot be carried in your vehicle" then it's kind of a moot point whether you own a weapon. If you can't take them to work, if you get arrested for bringing them to the mall, etc.

 

[riverman]

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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."

 

[Natebishop3]

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

 

[H.C.]

Doesn't matter, nothing will change.

 

[MarAzul]

this is one of the few guns that actually uses a "clip.

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.

 

[MarAzul]

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

 

[barfo]

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

How about as the court interprets it in the future? Will you also be ok with that?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

How about as the court interprets it in the future? Will you also be ok with that?

barfo

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

 

[barfo]

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

So what you are saying is really that you are ok with the status quo, not with the court deciding.

I'm ok with the court deciding whatever it decides. I'd also be ok with us repealing the 2nd amendment altogether, not that I expect that.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

So what you are saying is really that you are ok with the status quo, not with the court deciding.

I'm ok with the court deciding whatever it decides. I'd also be ok with us repealing the 2nd amendment altogether, not that I expect that.

barfo

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

 

[dviss1]

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."

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.

 

[Stevenson]

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.

 

[MarAzul]

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!

 

[Stevenson]

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.

 

[Cippy91]

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.

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

 

[dviss1]

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"...

 

[Cippy91]

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.

 

[Cippy91]

Don't be racist. I don't have "boys in the hood"...

lol I am just saying tell this to your black brothers on the streets who carry guns everywhere they go illegally. Yeah I know you think everything is racist but it's really not.

 

[dviss1]

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

Did my post differentiate skin tone? That's right SlyPokerDog it didn't.

 

[Cippy91]

Don't be racist. I don't have "boys in the hood"...

You sound like fucking idiot...

damn where did this guy get all these guns? hmmmmmm

 

[dviss1]

lol I am just saying tell this to your black brothers on the streets who carry guns everywhere they go illegally. Yeah I know you think everything is racist but it's really not.

Why did you even bring up race?

You're the one concentrated on it here.

 

[Cippy91]

Did my post differentiate skin tone? That's right SlyPokerDog it didn't.

lol wow two personal insults back to back. remember the rules kiddo

 

[Cippy91]

Why did you even bring up race?

You're the one concentrated on it here.

because it's you and it's an own taste of your medicine. It's the annoying shit you do all the time. If you are gonna address something, address all sides

 

[MarAzul]

living document and must be reinterpreted

Yes, I have heard of this view. I does seem to make the amendment process rather meaningless though.
And rather like giving away the farm too. After all we do not have much of anyway to hold the people charged with interpreting responsible.
We easily could end up with something with only minority support, forget about super majority.

 

[barfo]

We easily could end up with something with only minority support

That's what we've got now.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

That's what we've got now.

barfo

Then get an amendment going, see if you can get a change.

 

[dviss1]

lol wow two personal insults back to back. remember the rules kiddo

Here's a third. Why be an idiot and say some shit like "brothers in the hood"?

Then you don't see it as racist...

Typical with those Damascus folk I guess.