Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Ifreann]

Because they won't, or can't, keep and use them safely.

Thats thought policing.

How is it? We already do similar things with cars.

Not a good reason to deny someone these weapons.

If you can't or won't keep and use a gun safely, then you are a serious danger to those around you. Why should we allow that when we can correct it so easily?

---

Because they won't, or can't, keep and use them safely.

Fully automatic firearms have accounted for two fatalities since the 1934 NFA.
I do not believe any fatalities have resulted from the ownership of NFA-regulated destructive devices but if you have a source on the matter that tells you otherwise, feel free to share it.

This has what exactly to do with the hypothetical situation I was responding to?

---

Because they won't, or can't, keep and use them safely.

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

Requirements for gun safes, too.

---

Because they won't, or can't, keep and use them safely.

Firearms collectors aren't going to use those weapons very often if at all. Do you have any idea how much of a hassle and expense it is to acquire and use an NFA firearm? You can blow through $1,000+ worth of ammunition in one minute. Far more trouble than it is worth for most people, and your entire investment in time and money will be wasted if you do something to have your class III weapons privileges revoked.

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

[Death Metal]

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

Requirements for gun safes, too.

Impossible to enforce without random inspections.

[Chernoslavia]

1. Federal or not, it was never legal or justified. Just because the bill of rights isnt federal doesnt give anybody the right to violate it.

2. Then its a good thing nobody knows where I can hide em.

1. The bill of rights IS federal....

2. Famous last words.

1. The bill of rights APPLIES to the federal government, and the states as of the fourteenth amendment.

2.

[Imperializt Russia]

It was NEVER legal, that clearly violated the 2nd Amendment. Thats private property that they took away by force there was nothing just and legal about what they did. If the Constitution didnt prevent them from taking away guns, then neither would local laws.

Except, you know, the federal order to stop. And the current federal law that prevents confiscation in times of crisis.

Besides, you don't need gun registration to have gun confiscation, so that's another hole in your slippery slope fallacy.

If guns are registered, it makes it much easier for the government to come and find them.

"So, you have presented an M&P15, an Arsenal SGL 21 and a Mossberg 590. Where's the Beretta, sir?"

Fully automatic firearms have accounted for two fatalities since the 1934 NFA.
I do not believe any fatalities have resulted from the ownership of NFA-regulated destructive devices but if you have a source on the matter that tells you otherwise, feel free to share it.

This has what exactly to do with the hypothetical situation I was responding to?

Because clearly the people that do go through the extensive measures to qualify for the possibility of owning such weapons clearly are able to and consistently do, keep and use them safely.

[Chernoslavia]

Thats thought policing.

How is it? We already do similar things with cars.

Not a good reason to deny someone these weapons.

If you can't or won't keep and use a gun safely, then you are a serious danger to those around you. Why should we allow that when we can correct it so easily?

---

Fully automatic firearms have accounted for two fatalities since the 1934 NFA.
I do not believe any fatalities have resulted from the ownership of NFA-regulated destructive devices but if you have a source on the matter that tells you otherwise, feel free to share it.

This has what exactly to do with the hypothetical situation I was responding to?

---

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

Requirements for gun safes, too.

---

Firearms collectors aren't going to use those weapons very often if at all. Do you have any idea how much of a hassle and expense it is to acquire and use an NFA firearm? You can blow through $1,000+ worth of ammunition in one minute. Far more trouble than it is worth for most people, and your entire investment in time and money will be wasted if you do something to have your class III weapons privileges revoked.

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

2. The danger of fully automatic weapons? Hows that any different to the danger of of sem automatic weapons? Regardless, its not a justified reason to ban ownership of them.

3. No gun safe requirements, people have stored rocket launchers safely without gun safes, like the wooden crate with the soviet initials when AutoWeapons recieved their RPG-7.

[Saiwania]

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

Fully automatic weapons and explosives aren't currently a danger, especially with regards to how the NFA laws are enforced currently, which has an outstanding track record given that it prevents these weapons from going to just anyone while allowing some flexibility for collectors.

These people are generally rich, and will very rarely use such weapons at the range. What they will usually do is keep it boxed up, or put it on display mounted in a safe place. Because of scarcity, one which is in mint condition and in working order can fetch 5 to 6 figures when resold in accordance to the BATFE rules. It is a luxury asset in some ways which is more of a liability to own, but for which some people are willing to navigate through the entire process for legal ownership.

One of the only incidents involving a legally owned machinegun involved not a civilian, but a police officer who unlawfully used a MAC-11 to kill a police informant in Dayton, Ohio.

[Geilinor]

How is it? We already do similar things with cars.

If you can't or won't keep and use a gun safely, then you are a serious danger to those around you. Why should we allow that when we can correct it so easily?

---

This has what exactly to do with the hypothetical situation I was responding to?

---

Requirements for gun safes, too.

---

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

Most gun owners may be responsible, but the law has to consider more than just the average person.

[Imperializt Russia]

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

Most gun owners may be responsible, but the law has to consider more than just the average person.

Which the law does with regards to automatics and explosives.

[Geilinor]

Nobody is saying they have to disband. Just that they don't need to be recognized as a militia, and being called a militia doesn't mean they should have unregulated access to military-grade hardware.

Nobody should have unregulated access to any firearms be it military or civilian grade. However, if they call themselves a civilian militia and they do militia-like stuff then they are militia regardless of what a piece of paper or the public says.

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

[Qahadim]

Because they won't, or can't, keep and use them safely.

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

I'm not against this idea. However I think that each state should establish their own regulations in accordance to their own needs. If one state requires a test every three years and another every five, I don't see the problem with that.

[Collective America]

Nobody should have unregulated access to any firearms be it military or civilian grade. However, if they call themselves a civilian militia and they do militia-like stuff then they are militia regardless of what a piece of paper or the public says.

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

The national Guard is owned by the state. A militia should be something completely separate from the state ready to go up against it if need be. You need a fighting force that represents and protects the working class and all citizens from harm, even if that harm comes from the state

[Chernoslavia]

Nobody should have unregulated access to any firearms be it military or civilian grade. However, if they call themselves a civilian militia and they do militia-like stuff then they are militia regardless of what a piece of paper or the public says.

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

The government can consider what is and what is not for all I care. In reality, it doesnt change the definition of a militia.

[Gunstan]

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Samuel Adams

[Ifreann]

Requirements for gun safes, too.

Impossible to enforce without random inspections.

I suppose.

---

Because clearly the people that do go through the extensive measures to qualify for the possibility of owning such weapons clearly are able to and consistently do, keep and use them safely.

That doesn't follow at all. If I can afford a Ferrari, customised and delivered from Italy, does that mean I can drive?

---

How is it? We already do similar things with cars.

If you can't or won't keep and use a gun safely, then you are a serious danger to those around you. Why should we allow that when we can correct it so easily?

---

This has what exactly to do with the hypothetical situation I was responding to?

---

Requirements for gun safes, too.

---

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

Exactly why we should require them to demonstrate their responsibility.

2. The danger of fully automatic weapons? Hows that any different to the danger of of sem automatic weapons?

It's not, terribly.

Regardless, its not a justified reason to ban ownership of them.

Which, you'll note, I never suggested.

3. No gun safe requirements, people have stored rocket launchers safely without gun safes, like the wooden crate with the soviet initials when AutoWeapons recieved their RPG-7.

People have also left guns lying around, loaded, where children can get at them. Because people are sometimes stupid.

---

So? We shouldn't disregard the danger fully automatic weapons or explosives launchers pose just because they're expensive. Gods know we don't do that for other expensive things.

Fully automatic weapons and explosives aren't currently a danger, especially with regards to how the NFA laws are enforced currently, which has an outstanding track record given that it prevents these weapons from going to just anyone while allowing some flexibility for collectors.

Unless the NFA laws require the weapons in question to be disabled, they are still dangerous.

These people are generally rich, and will very rarely use such weapons at the range. What they will usually do is keep it boxed up, or put it on display mounted in a safe place. Because of scarcity, one which is in mint condition and in working order can fetch 5 to 6 figures when resold in accordance to the BATFE rules. It is a luxury asset in some ways which is more of a liability to own, but for which some people are willing to navigate through the entire process for legal ownership.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

One of the only incidents involving a legally owned machinegun involved not a civilian, but a police officer who unlawfully used a MAC-11 to kill a police informant in Dayton, Ohio.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

---

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

I'm not against this idea. However I think that each state should establish their own regulations in accordance to their own needs. If one state requires a test every three years and another every five, I don't see the problem with that.

I'd love to hear why guns become more or less safe depending on what state one is currently in, but that would be somewhat off topic.

[Geilinor]

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

The national Guard is owned by the state. A militia should be something completely separate from the state ready to go up against it if need be. You need a fighting force that represents and protects the working class and all citizens from harm, even if that harm comes from the state

Actually, no. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

[Qahadim]

Nobody should have unregulated access to any firearms be it military or civilian grade. However, if they call themselves a civilian militia and they do militia-like stuff then they are militia regardless of what a piece of paper or the public says.

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

Incorrect, as was already established a couple of pages back. Congress does not have the authority to abolish or disband the state militia. Whether they are organized and public, unorganized and public, or unorganized and private. Amendment two prevents them from doing so.

If you what you're claiming was true and the militia's existence rests solely on whether or not Congress recognizes them you render the second amendment wholly ineffective. Congress could pass a law disbanding the militia of the several states, and with the arguments that people use to say firearm ownership relies on a connection to militia service, would severely infringe on the state's ability to secure themselves, as well as the people to defend their liberties.

[Geilinor]

Claiming that you are a militia does not make you one. The government has no obligation to recognize any militia. We have an official militia, which is called the National Guard.

Incorrect, as was already established a couple of pages back. Congress does not have the authority to abolish or disband the state militia. Whether they are organized and public, unorganized and public, or unorganized and private. Amendment two prevents them from doing so.

If you what you're claiming was true and the militia's existence rests solely on whether or not Congress recognizes them you render the second amendment wholly ineffective. Congress could pass a law disbanding the militia of the several states, and with the arguments that people use to say firearm ownership relies on a connection to militia service, would severely infringe on the state's ability to secure themselves, as well as the people to defend their liberties.

What you were saying is that any armed group of citizens is a militia, which is stupid and dangerous. Al-Qaeda probably thinks that they're a militia fighting for Muslim rights, according to your definition.

[Death Metal]

Then the obvious solution is simple: Safety and proficiency tests. We already have them in most states that shall-issue CCPs, so expanding that further shouldn't be too unreasonable.

I'm not against this idea. However I think that each state should establish their own regulations in accordance to their own needs. If one state requires a test every three years and another every five, I don't see the problem with that.

Eh, some of the state and local laws tend to be kind of silly. Frankly every state should be shall-issue on CCPs, and not make you carry the clip separately, as that defeats the whole purpose of concealed carry.

[Qahadim]

Impossible to enforce without random inspections.

I suppose.

---

Because clearly the people that do go through the extensive measures to qualify for the possibility of owning such weapons clearly are able to and consistently do, keep and use them safely.

That doesn't follow at all. If I can afford a Ferrari, customised and delivered from Italy, does that mean I can drive?

---

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

Exactly why we should require them to demonstrate their responsibility.

2. The danger of fully automatic weapons? Hows that any different to the danger of of sem automatic weapons?

It's not, terribly.

Regardless, its not a justified reason to ban ownership of them.

Which, you'll note, I never suggested

3. No gun safe requirements, people have stored rocket launchers safely without gun safes, like the wooden crate with the soviet initials when AutoWeapons recieved their RPG-7.

People have also left guns lying around, loaded, where children can get at them. Because people are sometimes stupid.

---

Fully automatic weapons and explosives aren't currently a danger, especially with regards to how the NFA laws are enforced currently, which has an outstanding track record given that it prevents these weapons from going to just anyone while allowing some flexibility for collectors.

Unless the NFA laws require the weapons in question to be disabled, they are still dangerous.

These people are generally rich, and will very rarely use such weapons at the range. What they will usually do is keep it boxed up, or put it on display mounted in a safe place. Because of scarcity, one which is in mint condition and in working order can fetch 5 to 6 figures when resold in accordance to the BATFE rules. It is a luxury asset in some ways which is more of a liability to own, but for which some people are willing to navigate through the entire process for legal ownership.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

One of the only incidents involving a legally owned machinegun involved not a civilian, but a police officer who unlawfully used a MAC-11 to kill a police informant in Dayton, Ohio.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

---

I'm not against this idea. However I think that each state should establish their own regulations in accordance to their own needs. If one state requires a test every three years and another every five, I don't see the problem with that.

I'd love to hear why guns become more or less safe depending on what state one is currently in, but that would be somewhat off topic.

I never claimed they were more, or less safe. My argument hinges on the fact that it is the militia of that individual state and is under the governance of that state. Now that's not to say of the Congress established some form of a minimum a state could override that minimum. In absence of such, though, I don't really see a problem with my suggestion.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Incorrect, as was already established a couple of pages back. Congress does not have the authority to abolish or disband the state militia. Whether they are organized and public, unorganized and public, or unorganized and private. Amendment two prevents them from doing so.

If you what you're claiming was true and the militia's existence rests solely on whether or not Congress recognizes them you render the second amendment wholly ineffective. Congress could pass a law disbanding the militia of the several states, and with the arguments that people use to say firearm ownership relies on a connection to militia service, would severely infringe on the state's ability to secure themselves, as well as the people to defend their liberties.

What you were saying is that any armed group of citizens is a militia, which is stupid and dangerous. Al-Qaeda probably thinks that they're a militia fighting for Muslim rights, according to your definition.

It is. Nothing stupid or dangerous about it, merely defining. Technically unarmed groups of citizens are militia as well, and Al-Qaeda being non-citizens are fairly well excluded already.

[Death Metal]

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams isn't the boss of the Constitution.

[Chernoslavia]

The national Guard is owned by the state. A militia should be something completely separate from the state ready to go up against it if need be. You need a fighting force that represents and protects the working class and all citizens from harm, even if that harm comes from the state

Actually, no. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

Cool story, now tell us the other definitions.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because clearly the people that do go through the extensive measures to qualify for the possibility of owning such weapons clearly are able to and consistently do, keep and use them safely.

That doesn't follow at all. If I can afford a Ferrari, customised and delivered from Italy, does that mean I can drive?

No.

A more reasonable insinuation that you would arguably be "qualified" to be able to receive a Ferrari because you've passed your driving test, served in the Police force's traffic division as a driver and qualified for and used a race licence.

[Gunstan]

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams isn't the boss of the Constitution.

No he does not, but he sure as hell understands what the ideas of the constitution are and how things are supposed to be run.

[Chernoslavia]

Impossible to enforce without random inspections.

I suppose.

---

Because clearly the people that do go through the extensive measures to qualify for the possibility of owning such weapons clearly are able to and consistently do, keep and use them safely.

That doesn't follow at all. If I can afford a Ferrari, customised and delivered from Italy, does that mean I can drive?

---

1. But if they are responsible like most gun owners, then you no right to deny them their ownership of RPGs and AKs

Exactly why we should require them to demonstrate their responsibility.

2. The danger of fully automatic weapons? Hows that any different to the danger of of sem automatic weapons?

It's not, terribly.

Regardless, its not a justified reason to ban ownership of them.

Which, you'll note, I never suggested.

3. No gun safe requirements, people have stored rocket launchers safely without gun safes, like the wooden crate with the soviet initials when AutoWeapons recieved their RPG-7.

People have also left guns lying around, loaded, where children can get at them. Because people are sometimes stupid.

---

Fully automatic weapons and explosives aren't currently a danger, especially with regards to how the NFA laws are enforced currently, which has an outstanding track record given that it prevents these weapons from going to just anyone while allowing some flexibility for collectors.

Unless the NFA laws require the weapons in question to be disabled, they are still dangerous.

These people are generally rich, and will very rarely use such weapons at the range. What they will usually do is keep it boxed up, or put it on display mounted in a safe place. Because of scarcity, one which is in mint condition and in working order can fetch 5 to 6 figures when resold in accordance to the BATFE rules. It is a luxury asset in some ways which is more of a liability to own, but for which some people are willing to navigate through the entire process for legal ownership.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

One of the only incidents involving a legally owned machinegun involved not a civilian, but a police officer who unlawfully used a MAC-11 to kill a police informant in Dayton, Ohio.

And, again, they're still dangerous.

---

I'm not against this idea. However I think that each state should establish their own regulations in accordance to their own needs. If one state requires a test every three years and another every five, I don't see the problem with that.

I'd love to hear why guns become more or less safe depending on what state one is currently in, but that would be somewhat off topic.

1. And how would you propose that?

2. Neither have I said that you did.