40 Reasons guns should be banned

[Flash]

If you can afford it, sure, why not?

Are you really okay with someone owning one of these? Ammo included?

You can actually have all that stuff... theres just a shit ton of hoops to jump through... I knew a guy that had a 203 with HE rounds. He paid a $200 tax for each one of them and a $200 tax to buy the 203. And there's plenty of guys out there with live artillery.

When I mentioned artillery I was certainly not thinking of a grenade launcher. I am thinking more of the Army's definition, like the howitzer pictured above.

Same with anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, etc. Where is the upper limit? What is not an arm per the Constitution?

 

[nittany03]

Are you really okay with someone owning one of these? Ammo included?

When I mentioned artillery I was certainly not thinking of a grenade launcher. I am thinking more of the Army's definition, like the howitzer pictured above.

Same with anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, etc. Where is the upper limit? What is not an arm per the Constitution?

This has been covered in Supreme Court case law, specifically DC vs. Heller and US vs. Miller. They have essentially limited it to small arms of the type currently legal in most parts of the country. Further, as Justice Scalia argued in Heller, limiting the Second Amendment to flintlock muckets is as ridiculous as limiting the First to quill pens and Gutenberg presses.

 

[Flash]

This has been covered in Supreme Court case law, specifically DC vs. Heller and US vs. Miller. They have essentially limited it to small arms of the type currently legal in most parts of the country. Further, as Justice Scalia argued in Heller, limiting the Second Amendment to flintlock muckets is as ridiculous as limiting the First to quill pens and Gutenberg presses.

But what is legal is gradually being pushed up, even recently, where does it end?

 

[H60Gunner]

But what is legal is gradually being pushed up?

How's that? As opposed to ten years ago?

where does it end?

With FLASH suppressors.

Do you really think, that I or anyone else, will end up acquiring a fully functional 155mm Howitzer and setting it up in my front yard? Ever?

 

[nittany03]

But what is legal is gradually being pushed up, even recently, where does it end?

How so? Assault rifles have always been legal; the ban from 1994-2004 just regulated what cosmetic features defined a semiautomatic "assault weapon," which was banned. Note the difference in the two terms. One is a type of gun. The other is a loaded political term (pardon the pun).

Machine guns have been legal even after the 1936 National Firearms Act; the market supply was merely fixed after 1986, making them exorbitantly expensive. These must be registered with the ATF. Keep in mind that this had NOTHING to do with the "Assault Weapons" ban, which ONLY REGULATED SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Any gun (rifle, mortar, howitzer, whatever) with a bore diameter greater tham .5 inches, which is not a shotgun, is a "Destructive Device." So is a bomb, land mine, grenade, or whatever. These are regulated under the National Firearms Act and must be registered with the ATF, just like a machine gun. Note that the regulations governing Class 3 firearms and destructive devices were set in 1934 and, other than the ban on machine gun new manufacture in 1986, have not changed much.

So if semiautomatic weapons have always been legal, except for a 10 year period where scary-looking ones were banned, and the regs concerning anything more heavy than that haven't changed much on the federal level since 1934 . . . where is this creeping legalization you speak of?

 

[xmid]

When I mentioned artillery I was certainly not thinking of a grenade launcher. I am thinking more of the Army's definition, like the howitzer pictured above.

There are live artillery shoots both for civil war era cannons and for WWII era tanks. I don't know the hoops one would have to jump through to own these, but I'm sure they are numerous. The kind of people that go to these lengths to have that kind of stuff are generally not the kind that are gonna turn around and use it to cause harm. Just as there are an extremely small number (1 I believe) of cases of people using NFA registered weapons (machine guns) in violent crimes. They are usually collectors and such, not crazed gun nuts living in a cabin in the woods.

 

[A4sForever]

But what is legal is gradually being pushed up, even recently, where does it end?

It's already been "ended" -- a long, long time ago ...

"Arms" (to incorporate the term: 'small arms') is generally accepted by most (all?) military organizations as referencing those weapons that are capable of being deployed and used by ONE person, i.e., "shouldered" and used by one person -- hence the term "arm" and "bear arms". The term has been historically used to differentiate 'arms/small arms' from "infantry support or crew served" weapons ... at least that is what it means in military parlance.

There is no direct 'translation' into the civilian vernacular -- 'cause U.S. civilians generally don't possess "infantry support or crew served weapons" ... and anything possessing a bore larger than .5"/12.7mm - to exclude those munitions capable of containing an 'explosive charge' (excepting bore diameters in some arms such as shotguns or sporting firearms) is usually considered/defined as a "destructive device" ... as per Title 18 US Code, Part 1, Chapter 44, § 921. Definitions. While we all realize the UN has an ongoing effort to mesh the definition of 'arms' into something that would prohibit civilian ownership of "small arms/arms" ... they're gonna' have their hands full if/when they venture outside their nest in NYC ...

"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."

 

[xmid]

Any gun (rifle, mortar, howitzer, whatever) with a bore diameter greater tham .5 inches, which is not a shotgun, is a "Destructive Device." So is a bomb, land mine, grenade, or whatever. These are regulated under the National Firearms Act and must be registered with the ATF, just like a machine gun. Note that the regulations governing Class 3 firearms and destructive devices were set in 1934 and, other than the ban on machine gun new manufacture in 1986, have not changed much.

And ironically the arty, sound suppressors, short barreled shotguns, grenade launchers, etc. are generally cheaper and easier to find and purchase than many machineguns... Luckily NFA stuff has largely flown under the radar. Something that as someone that has a MG and is friends of several others who do (the full auto MP-5 I'm shooting in my avatar is part of a large collection of a Ret. Col.) I'm pretty happy about...

 

[nittany03]

There are live artillery shoots both for civil war era cannons and for WWII era tanks. I don't know the hoops one would have to jump through to own these, but I'm sure they are numerous. The kind of people that go to these lengths to have that kind of stuff are generally not the kind that are gonna turn around and use it to cause harm. Just as there are an extremely small number (1 I believe) of cases of people using NFA registered weapons (machine guns) in violent crimes. They are usually collectors and such, not crazed gun nuts living in a cabin in the woods.

Agreed. I knew a man in Whidbey who owned a cannon. Closest he ever came to shooting it at anyone was starting small-town parades. One of the nicest, most solid, down-to-Earth people I've ever met, God rest his soul.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

That being said, I have never seen a need for automatic weapons in an urban environment. It's just a matter of opinion I guess. I like well placed shots. But this is the ONLY limit I would ever propose on firearms.

That is as arbitrary as anything else. As soon as you starting putting ANY restrictions on weapons based on the group not "needing" them, then you might as well keep limiting. I mean, just because you personally are opposed to automatic weapons, why should the rest of us adhere to that? What if I am opposed to whatever gun it is you happen to like?

My case is that the majority of guns in inner city crimes are purchased legally in a personal sale manner.

Where do you get this statistic?

When I mentioned artillery I was certainly not thinking of a grenade launcher. I am thinking more of the Army's definition, like the howitzer pictured above.

You didn't respond when I answered you above, but what good does it do to our society to stop me from buying a howitzer and mounting it in my backyard? Where do you draw the line? What size of round and range of weapon is TOO much?

If I cannot purchase an artillery piece, can I still fill my van up with fertilizer and do the same thing with it? Are there any cases of artillery pieces being used to commit mass murder by a private citizen? Or do they just look bad?

Why don't we just stop banning arbitrary tools that can be used as weapons and punish the ones who use those tools (read: firearms) inappropriately. With prisons being as overcrowded as they are, wouldn't it be better to lock up 1 guy for 50 years for murder, vice 100 guys for 10 years for unlawfully possessing some arbitrary device?

I agree with the premise, the problem is that when people crack their grape and turn themselves into vegetables and the state taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for 80 years of life support because they didn't sign their organ donor cards.

If the state is on the hook for the medical bills (and they are in most cases), then they should be able to make some kind of rules to mitigate the risk...

Rather than force me to change my actions (for better or worse), why don't we just say: "If you get in a wreck and you weren't doing the proper things to care for yourself (seatbelt/helmet/whatever), then the State is not going to pay for your healthcare."

Insurance companies do the same thing. If you don't follow their rules, then you are breaching your end of the contract and they will not pay.

 

[nittany03]

With prisons being as overcrowded as they are, wouldn't it be better to lock up 1 guy for 50 years for murder, vice 100 guys for 10 years for unlawfully possessing some arbitrary device?

Yes. But then politicians can't look important and "engaged" by passing laws to Keep People Safer. That's all modern gun control laws do; give politicians a way to win the next election. The NFA was passed in 1934 in the middle of the Great Depression to keep Al Capone and his type from wreaking havoc with Tommy guns.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I agree with you...and I think I just puked a little...in my mouth...

 

[statesman]

The NFA was passed in 1936 in the middle of Prohibition to keep Al Capone and his type from wreaking havoc with Tommy guns.

I'll bet it stopped mob violence in its tracks, and they never had a problem with mobsters owning automatic weapons again.

 

[m26]

The NFA was passed in 1936 in the middle of Prohibition to keep Al Capone and his type from wreaking havoc with Tommy guns.

1936 was the middle of prohibition?

 

[nittany03]

1936 was the middle of prohibition?

Argh. You're right. It was 1934 and prohibition ended the year before. Six or seven years before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. :icon_tong