Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)

EDIT: If you're going to reply to this post then there's no need to quote it. Just write a reply and people will assume that you're replying to this post that you're reading right now. That's Forum Posting 101, people.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
I would draw the line at military grade weapons. Assault rifles, no. Assault weapons, sure (for the most part, the term has very broad meaning).
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,364
1,671
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
 

Soundwave

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
I'm pretty pro-gun-control (so feel free to disregard what I'd say in a thread asking for the opinions of anti-gun-control people), and I feel that civilians should only have access to rifles and shotguns with fairly limited capacities. Handguns, combat rifles and automatic weapons have no business being in civilian hands, as they're designed specifically to commit murder, which is of course, illegal.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
I mostly prefer the system the U.S. uses now. you can pretty much own anything that isn't automatic without any special licensing. Fully automatic weapons require extensive wait periods, background checks and licensees, and getting them pretty much puts you on every FBI and ATF watch list for the rest of your life. Grenades and rocket launchers in the U.S. need even more stringent licensing and are registered by the round rather than by the weapon. The only civilians with legal military explosives and machine guns in the U.S. are seriously loaded collectors or businesses that rent out the weapons for training or entertainment purposes.

That said, I would like to see longer wait periods on basic weapons to discourage suicide plans and crimes of passion. U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf. That one 8 hour class certified me to carry a hidden weapon on my person or in my car in every state west of the Mississippi except California. They really should at least make the test a little more comprehensive than that.

Of course I accept that different states have different standards and am happy to comply with them when crossing the interstate border, I may be a little loose in my beliefs on gun control, but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
I'd say restrict gun ownership to weapons available at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted, so smoothbore muskets and flintlock pistols for everybody. Miss your one shot? Too bad, better pray the other guy misses too, and that you have brushed up on your swordsmanship and/or other hand to hand combat skills. You get your right to bear arms exactly as the founding fathers intended, and you eliminate the whole mass shooting problem the US has.

No I'm not being particularly serious about this, but I don't have much of a stake in this debate, I don't live in a country where half of everyone is armed to the teeth because they are afraid the other half is going to show up, kill them, and burglarize their miscellania.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.
So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,364
1,671
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
krazykidd said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
Any hunting rifle with a scope can be used as a "sniper rifle." Inversely, dedicated "sniper rifles" can be used for hunting.

And like I already mentioned, if someone wants a barrett .50 cal (which is a "sniper rifle"), and can afford it I think they should legally be able to purchase one.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Hunting rifles. What more do you need beyond a hunting rifle and/or a pistol anyways? If you need an assault rifle or sub machine gun to "protect" yourself, then you probably arent living in the US. Or zombies took over.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
krazykidd said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
Any hunting rifle with a scope can be used as a "sniper rifle." Inversely, dedicated "sniper rifles" can be used for hunting.

And like I already mentioned, if someone wants a barrett .50 cal (which is a "sniper rifle"), and can afford it I think they should legally be able to purchase one.
At the risk of sounding like a smartass, I'm assuming your excluding actual large caliber guns like a 30 millimeter cannon or other guns you can't fire outside an attached vehicle and are only used in an anti-air/anti-armor/ anti-missile capacity.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,364
1,671
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
EternallyBored said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
krazykidd said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
Any hunting rifle with a scope can be used as a "sniper rifle." Inversely, dedicated "sniper rifles" can be used for hunting.

And like I already mentioned, if someone wants a barrett .50 cal (which is a "sniper rifle"), and can afford it I think they should legally be able to purchase one.
At the risk of sounding like a smartass, I'm assuming your excluding actual large caliber guns like a 30 millimeter cannon or other guns you can't fire outside an attached vehicle and are only used in an anti-air/anti-armor/ anti-missile capacity.
Maybe I should have made that clarification, but yes, I'm excluding anything that requires a weapons platform. I mean come on, that would just be silly.
 

Dense_Electric

New member
Jul 29, 2009
615
0
0
Lilani said:
Shadowstar38 said:
Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.
So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?
TEXTBOOK strawman fallacy. We're clearly talking about firearms here, not nuclear warheads. And seriously, if you're going to suggest that one person with an automatic weapon can cause anywhere near as much damage as a nuclear weapon, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
I'm pretty middle of the road when it comes to gun laws.

I'm absolutely all for folks owning guns, but I also thing the requirements to get one should be significantly harder and the laws governing their misuse should be much more severe.

As for what should and shouldn't be allowed. To me there's really no need for anything automatic, armor piercing or explosive.


And yeah I know..."Criminals don't care about gun laws." That ass-backward logic works on any law you feel like disagreeing with and shouldn't pass the lips of any self respecting human being.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
I probably shouldn't be in this thread since I'm pretty pro gun control, but I think hunting rifles and shotguns serve a use and should be legal. Here you need a hunting licence to purchase such a weapon, but it's not extremely difficult to get one.

The problem when we are discussing gun control is that we are always discussing making it impossible to obtain weapons through legal means and there's always a smartass mentioning how criminals don't care about laws (fallacy since most weapons used in mass shootings are obtained legally). Gun control is about making to more difficult to obtain and carry weapons and to crack down on illegal weapons.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
EternallyBored said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
krazykidd said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
Any hunting rifle with a scope can be used as a "sniper rifle." Inversely, dedicated "sniper rifles" can be used for hunting.

And like I already mentioned, if someone wants a barrett .50 cal (which is a "sniper rifle"), and can afford it I think they should legally be able to purchase one.
At the risk of sounding like a smartass, I'm assuming your excluding actual large caliber guns like a 30 millimeter cannon or other guns you can't fire outside an attached vehicle and are only used in an anti-air/anti-armor/ anti-missile capacity.
Maybe I should have made that clarification, but yes, I'm excluding anything that requires a weapons platform. I mean come on, that would just be silly.
To be fair, I have actually debated with people that thought Main Battle tanks and anti-aircraft platforms should be available for civilians with enough money to own. Generally that line of thinking boils down to people arguing that the U.S. second amendment should allow civilians to keep pace with the government in order to overthrow any potential "tyrannies" within the government. Tyranny usually being defined as whatever that person considers a political opinion not their own.

Like you said though, that would just be silly, and I'm pretty much in agreement with you, with proper licensing I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own pretty much any standard man-portable firearm within reason.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
see im in an odd position in this. On the one hand I am an advocate of obscene amounts of freedom. So as far as I am concerned if I felt compelled to buy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/bren-carrier-universal-MKI-WWII-tank-armored-aormer-british-canadian-APC-/370897323788?forcerrptr=true&hash=item565b34070c&item=370897323788&pt=Military_Vehicles

I should legally be able to do so.

However on the other hand, even as a gun owner I am an advocate of extensively increased gun control regulations.

I personally like the autobahn approach. I do not think any manner of weapon should be off limits. (well WMD? Alright twisted arm) Virtually any kind of weapon should be legal for anyone to purchase and own if they wish. However if they DO try to purchase and own one, the weapon should require license and registration to make the owner accountable for the weapon being bought. The process of purchasing a weapon will be long and involved and the more dangerous the weaponry, the more hoops to jump through in order to do so. Not only an extensive background check, but some manner of psychiatric clearance for anything more aggressive than hunting weapons.

So Give the most extreme freedom. Do rigorous validation and compliance to "try" to keep weapons out of the wrong hands and in the event those weapons are misused make the owner accountable for that misuse or neglect.

Freedom is paramount, but no one ever said freedom was going to be free of effort.