A Matter Of Perception?

[Zedicus]

I'm still waiting for the paperwork to get through on the Iowa-class 10 inch broadside I'm mounting on the starbord facing side of my roof. That'll teach the tree rats a lesson

That's where you are going wrong dude, you need about 4 Mounted .308 cal Miniguns for Tree Rats.

Back on topic.

If the .mil or .gov can have it, so should we.

Although on WMD's I wouldn't want one, to volitile & unstable, dont even think .gov nuts should have em.

 

[jakemccoy]

Hi everyone,

Like our forefathers, we have to be forward thinking on this topic. What if the dynamics of the world change in ways that are not readily foreseeable? There's a small part of me that can imagine private citizens having positive use for WMD's. For example, what if we get a President who forces his/her will on the people by threatening to obliterate portions of the U.S using WMD's? A private citizen with WMD's may be able to create a cold civil war until cooler heads prevail. Any weapon that is a threat to another country is a potential threat to the citizenry as well.

Yes, that sounds bizarre! However, think about what the founding fathers were up against. They had to have the wisdom, humility and foresight to make the Constitution sufficiently broad in order for it to have teeth hundreds of years later. I challenge everyone to think at least 100 years out. More groundbreaking inventions are yet to come, no pun intended.

Regarding CCW, I don't agree with the concept. It poses restrictions on top of the 2nd Amendment. If CCW licenses must be a part of our society, then licensed gun owners should have the right to carry in all places law enforcement officers are allowed to carry. I understand such a position is controversial because such rights would necessarily allow CCW in courthouses and prisons. Anyway, such an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be consistent with the intent of the founding fathers.

Here's a zinger: We're approaching an era in which explosive weaponry is no longer the biggest threat to mass killings. The biggest threat is soon to be viral weaponry. Such weaponry is a kind of WMD. However, would viral weaponry be an "arm" within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment? A brilliant scientist could create a destructive viral weapon in a home lab with publicly available materials. Maybe it's been done already...

Let's try to think outside the box. Feel free to analyze my ideas to pieces or to present some forward looking ideas of your own.

Regards,
Jake McCoy

P.S. I appreciate the civil discussion.

 

[jrfoxx]

The same 2nd Amendment right that lets you stop a lethal threat is the same one that lets others stop you if you so threaten them.

At any moment,
...a firearm threatens roughly 1MOA of a 1km radius sphere.
...a grenade threatens roughly everything within a 10m radius sphere.
...a WMD threatens roughly everything within a 10km radius sphere.
The first two can be managed individually. The latter cannot.

That I did not vote for the first option (chose the second) was only because others are, generically speaking, justified in taking you out if you have one. If Cooper's First Rule is expanded accordingly - all weapons are in their most dangerous state - then the simple possession of a WMD is grounds for disarming one of it with extreme prejudice.

Well said.I'm also all for anything other than WMD's.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Anything beyond a traditional firearm, that is a tube that uses a propellant to fire a solid projectile, or group of projectiles, that can be held and operated by one person and is under the size determination of "canon" isn't something you need/should have under the 2nd Amendment.

With a proper license, sure. No one should have WMDs. That's a legal hassle. No one needs a cannon, but with a lot of permits and ****, fine. But the 2nd Amendment refers mostly to firearms and not destructive devices.

Should dynamite be sold over the counter? I don't think so. Should it be available? Of course.

I think basically all guns are fair game to own, including .50s, machine guns, etc. But things like cannons, artillery, etc, should be controlled fairly strictly.

---
After thinking about it, my answer doesn't really please me. Reading some other posts again, I do agree that people should have more leeway in arming themselves. There does need to be responsibility though. I'd be ok with people having weapons mounted on their boats and cars and stuff, provided that everyone knows the responsibility involved. You can't go off willy nilly, you're not the police, you're making yourself a target, etc. But that said, if someone wants to cruise the coastline hunting pirates go for it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The poll would be more useful if it was more objective and less editorial.

That said, I'm inclined to stay out of people's business unless it negatively affects others.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" violate my tolerance because they are designed to impact lots of other people negatively. If you pick one up at a Taliban garage sale and want to see if it works, that would be bad for other people and no one has that kind of right.

Tanks don't bother me at all, not even if the armaments are functional, as long as you don't cause damage that affects anyone but you. Drive off into your own piece of desert if you want and blast away at your own unoccupied buildings if you like. I see no reason for me to care unless you hurt other people or property.

Military small arms? Why in the world should anyone care. If you plan to invade Mexico with your M-14 you'll die of the runs anyway and regret the decision. If you happen to survive you're Mexico's problem and I'll wager that they can solve it.

Dynamite, blasting caps, skyrockets, firecrackers, howitzers, aircraft carriers ... What's it to me? If you can afford it and won't hurt other people or their property, go enjoy yourself.

I'm not afraid of things and I don't understand why anyone else fears them. I do have concerns about how some people use things. So I've no interest in controlling things or in controlling people either.

For example, it doesn't bother me to be among a bunch of people shooting a bunch of machine guns pointed that way. But point one little .22 single shot this way and I want to put a stop to it fast.

I'm a bit more relaxed than TexasSkywalker, I suppose. A convicted felon who is released into the public after having served his sentence is no longer a convicted felon in my eyes. He is what I would call a free man. He should be able to vote and to do anything else a free man can do--including defend his life and that of his family. So of course he should have the ability to acquire the means to do it effectively. Eternal damnation is within God's exclusive province, not mine or any other human being's. The usual proviso applies: if the former felon misuses his thing he should be cut off from it--not because it's a thing or because he committed some other crime for which he paid, but because of that misuse. I want to encourage people to do right even if they've done wrong, and I don't see how to encourage them if they're not allowed to behave like ordinary citizens.

Good people who are mistrusted and controlled tend to become mistrustful, controlling, resentful, and frustrated. That's dangerous. A society that behaves so is being misled and is foolish to allow it, because there is no profit in creating increasing numbers of such people. That kind of society will fall sooner or later. Bad people who hurt other people need to be stopped. In between those extremes live the majority of us--or maybe just you, because I'm pretty good--and are better left unimproved by all the really smart people who know better than anyone else exactly how everyone else should live. I hate it when they do that. I never liked being forced to eat brussels sprouts when I was a kid just because it was good for me. It wasn't.

People who are a danger to themselves or to others are another story. If their condition is chronic, they do need to be kept from dangerous things such as firearms and tanks: they are not able to control themselves and can hurt other people. But if their condition is temporary, it's to my advantage that they be assisted back to normalcy. Then they can do productive work, pay taxes, and enjoy life. They have the right to defend their lives and to acquire the means to do so. Like Chico Marx, "I don't believe in a sanity clause."

If I've forgotten to mention something specific, apply the above principles to it--including the one about who gets to impose eternal damnation.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Interesting that whoever voted for whatever is viewable, but the OP didn't post a vote themselves.

That said, they are tools. It's up to the mind influencing the brain sending the nerve signal to the finger that flips the switch that is a weapon.

 

[mr hanky]

That's where I'm at. No person or government has ever proven to be able to use these responsibly. I would simply rather that they didn't exist at all.

So your position is becuase people have acted irresponisbly with WMD's they shouldn't exist? Wouldn't that same logic follow with firearms? Just a question/thought, no slander, just struck me to ask ya...

 

[ShunZu]

The poll would be more useful if it was more objective and less editorial.

And the poll didn't make a distinction between WHO is potentially owning them. Nut cases? Convicted felons? Terrorists? By making no distinction in the poll, one must assume you mean EVERYONE. Idiotic questions do not deserve an answer. I doubt many sane people will weigh in on the poll, especially THR members.

 

[Vector]

ShunZu

And the poll didn't make a distinction between WHO is potentially owning them. Nut cases? Convicted felons? Terrorists? By making no distinction in the poll, one must assume you mean EVERYONE. Idiotic questions do not deserve an answer. I doubt many sane people will weigh in on the poll, especially THR members.

So by your comment you think it is not worthy of a response from you or fellow THR members

FYI- The poll presumes legal law abiding citizens.

My goal (which I think is being accomplished nicely) is to see where others here are at in comparison to my own view. Not to be redundant, but I think of myself as right of center as a pro gun rights supporter. So far it would appear that I am not right of center on this board, and that we have a few people with extreme views, at least by my standards. Regardless, they are entitled to their opinions, and it is eye opening to read what some people think.
I used some extreme examples both at the top and bottom of the poll just in case there are posters who feel that way. I did not set out to make a perfect poll, but with 10 choices I figured it would cover most peoples viewpoint.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

FYI- the government owns the mineral rights on all property in the US.

Where do you get your information? My deed says I own the mineral rights on my property!

 

[brighamr]

But the 2nd Amendment refers mostly to firearms and not destructive devices.

This is not a personal attack, just a question. If the government had never classified anything as a "destructive device" would you still have this opinion? It's very interesting that up until 1968, there weren't any "destructive devices", just a whole lot of different types of firearms. The term was deemed as a means to regulate firearms differently (and more harshly).

My opinion should be obvious. If the military has it, civilians should have it AND at the same cost (no tax, permits, etc). In my mind, if you can legally own a gun you should legally be able to own anything else you feel is necessary for the defense of a free state. (ie. A militia fighting a war with semi-autos against a military that has LAWs, RPGs, tanks, etc will probably lose the fight.... and half the reason we have the 2A is to defend against foreign AND domestic....)

WMDs? In all honesty, if we the people were the only ones with access to WMDs, our government would think a lot harder about their decisions.... that said, I don't really like the idea of an irresponsable gun owner also having the capability to wipe out a large city with one mistake... that's a hard topic. This leads to another question. If we the people had a more formal militia (ie national militia with the same rights\leniencies as the National guard, but all members were volunteers, would you join? Would you want the same military weapons as the military? Would you want to train the same way?) Just a thought.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I think the poll gives you a pretty good idea how far out of the mainstream we are. Close to 50% of us think private citizens should be able to own Surface-to-Air missiles. I would guess that far less than 1% of the American People feel that way. I have always thought we had a very high wack factor, this pill confirms it.

Mike

 

[jakemccoy]

Robert Hairless wrote:

The poll would be more useful if it was more objective and less editorial.

That said, I'm inclined to stay out of people's business unless it negatively affects others.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" violate my tolerance because they are designed to impact lots of other people negatively. If you pick one up at a Taliban garage sale and want to see if it works, that would be bad for other people and no one has that kind of right.

Tanks don't bother me at all, not even if the armaments are functional, as long as you don't cause damage that affects anyone but you. Drive off into your own piece of desert if you want and blast away at your own unoccupied buildings if you like. I see no reason for me to care unless you hurt other people or property.

Military small arms? Why in the world should anyone care. If you plan to invade Mexico with your M-14 you'll die of the runs anyway and regret the decision. If you happen to survive you're Mexico's problem and I'll wager that they can solve it.

Dynamite, blasting caps, skyrockets, firecrackers, howitzers, aircraft carriers ... What's it to me? If you can afford it and won't hurt other people or their property, go enjoy yourself.

I'm not afraid of things and I don't understand why anyone else fears them. I do have concerns about how some people use things. So I've no interest in controlling things or in controlling people either.

For example, it doesn't bother me to be among a bunch of people shooting a bunch of machine guns pointed that way. But point one little .22 single shot this way and I want to put a stop to it fast.

I'm a bit more relaxed than TexasSkywalker, I suppose. A convicted felon who is released into the public after having served his sentence is no longer a convicted felon in my eyes. He is what I would call a free man. He should be able to vote and to do anything else a free man can do--including defend his life and that of his family. So of course he should have the ability to acquire the means to do it effectively. Eternal damnation is within God's exclusive province, not mine or any other human being's. The usual proviso applies: if the former felon misuses his thing he should be cut off from it--not because it's a thing or because he committed some other crime for which he paid, but because of that misuse. I want to encourage people to do right even if they've done wrong, and I don't see how to encourage them if they're not allowed to behave like ordinary citizens.

Good people who are mistrusted and controlled tend to become mistrustful, controlling, resentful, and frustrated. That's dangerous. A society that behaves so is being misled and is foolish to allow it, because there is no profit in creating increasing numbers of such people. That kind of society will fall sooner or later. Bad people who hurt other people need to be stopped. In between those extremes live the majority of us--or maybe just you, because I'm pretty good--and are better left unimproved by all the really smart people who know better than anyone else exactly how everyone else should live. I hate it when they do that. I never liked being forced to eat brussels sprouts when I was a kid just because it was good for me. It wasn't.

People who are a danger to themselves or to others are another story. If their condition is chronic, they do need to be kept from dangerous things such as firearms and tanks: they are not able to control themselves and can hurt other people. But if their condition is temporary, it's to my advantage that they be assisted back to normalcy. Then they can do productive work, pay taxes, and enjoy life. They have the right to defend their lives and to acquire the means to do so. Like Chico Marx, "I don't believe in a sanity clause."

If I've forgotten to mention something specific, apply the above principles to it--including the one about who gets to impose eternal damnation.

Hi Robert,

That's some good writing there. It has helped to improve my opinion of Internet forums.

Regards,
Jake McCoy

 

[JAG2955]

I think that anything that can be construed as a "militia" weapon, and not a weapon of a standing army should be allowed to be owned.

For example:
M249 SAW: Individual-militia
M1 Abrams: Crew served-standing army

It gets fuzzy with things like Stinger missiles, or SMAWs, but in general, anything that can be used effectively by one man should be able to be bought at your friendly neighborhood gunshop.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

My feelings on this issue are exactly the same as on any other seemingly controversial ones being debated in the media and in society. As abhorrent as many controversial practices are to me, my opinion is just that, MY opinion. Outside my own household nothing I think, say or do, has any bearing or relevance. What you think, say or do, has no relevance to me, UNLESS it directly impacts my life or my household.

That being said, the whole issue of gun rights, religious rights, liberal or conservative, radical or centrist, pro or anti anything means nothing to me. You keep to yourselves, and I will keep to myself. Stay on your side of the fence and we will be good neighbors. I believe that most of the issues currently being debated are only relevant insofar as someone is trying to force THEIR personal beliefs on others. You want a gun, go get one. Want dozens, fine with me. Want many kids, knock yourself out. Just don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't feed them properly. Want a better life for your too many kids? Give them up to someone who will care for them properly.

In my opinion too many issues are being brought up into the scrutiny of the media solely for the purpose of "forming public opinion" not to gauge it and report it. There are far too many non-issues distracting people from getting on with the business of their lives, and that is just how they want it to be.

 

[jakemccoy]

RPCYemen wrote:

I think the poll gives you a pretty good idea how far out of the mainstream we are. Close to 50% of us think private citizens should be able to own Surface-to-Air missiles. I would guess that far less than 1% of the American People feel that way. I have always thought we had a very high wack factor, this pill confirms it.

I can imagine the general public's perception of this thread. It wouldn't be good. Ironically, there is little whack here. I have read mostly logical arguments and solid reasoning. Irrational anti-gun babble is what's whacky.

 

[jakemccoy]

It's interesting that the largest poll getter (conventional firearms, including machine guns) is the one option that is slightly right of what is currently palatable to the general public.

 

[kludge]

I voted "tanks"

How are you supposed to defeat a tyrannical government's mercenaries without equal/superior weaponry?

I didn't vote WMD, because killing your own population is couterproductive when fighting tyranny.

Don't forget communication systems... citizen militias should have secure communication satellites.

And the ability to disable the ones belonging to the tyrannical government.

During the Revolution, private citizens did own field artillery. And ships with cannons.

 

[kludge]

It's interesting that the largest poll getter (conventional firearms, including machine guns) is the one option that is slightly right of what is currently palatable to the general public.

It's interesting that two "ceilings" are forming, one at "machine gun" and one below "WMD."

 

[kludge]

1. One other reason that standing armies were distasteful to the Founders was there was a long history of kings and mercenaries invading other countries. Hmmmm A citizen militia pretty much prevented that... what guy is going to leave his family and travel a thousand miles to do the bidding of some egotistical maniac? "Yeah, I think I'll stay home this winter."

But when some foreign egotistical maniac decides to invade our country, well, you have no problem mustering the troops.

2. Citizen militias also have little interest in pludering your own countryside an raping the women of your countrymen.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

If you look at it from the standpoint that the people must be able to over throw the government, then at the absolute minimum we would need the SAMs and LAWs and anti-tank weaponry. You'd want the tanks. A 'militia' interpretation of the 2nd would mean that everything the army has access to, you should have access to. So maybe if you declare yourself part of a militia or agree to the responsibility of protecting the entire society, you get access and what not.

But I don't think many wouldn't see the distinction between a firearm and a 250lb bomb. There are plenty of non-WMDs that are indiscriminate. All artillery pieces, grenades, etc. Those kill whoever is near it. You can't single out one person, you single out one area.

I'd be hesitant to just have 250lb bombs on the racks and grenades everywhere. The cost to manufacture a grenade is tiny. But should they be on the shelf at Wal-Mart?

I've got no problem with responsible people tossing grenades in the desert. But you put them on a store shelf and sooner or later it's going to be used for evil. Guns - Used for good and evil, but they're relatively small incidents and most are used for good.

A Grenade would hardly be used for good by the civilian (overkill, wanton destruction, etc) but thrown into a bank would probably prove pretty effective pretty quickly. But in the event of some sort of tyrannical war we fight, I'd of course want grenades.

I'm torn between where I should stand. It's somewhat hypocritical to say "guns but no explosives." But on the other hand a guy with $500 worth of gun and ammo is less deadly than a guy with $500 worth of grenades.

Err on the side of the Constitution, though, I suppose. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Vector]

jakemccoy wrote;

I can imagine the general public's perception of this thread. It wouldn't be good. Ironically, there is little whack here. I have read mostly logical arguments and solid reasoning. Irrational anti-gun babble is what's whacky.

While I agree that most of the points made are with reasoning, rest assured that those who reason that regular citizens should be allowed to have WMD's or mechanized weapons like tanks, are way out of the mainstream.

It's interesting that the largest poll getter (conventional firearms, including machine guns) is the one option that is slightly right of what is currently palatable to the general public.

I have not seen recent polls, but I suspect the majority of Americans might feel closer to semi-auto ownership with restrictions on what the media has termed "assault weapons".

So far, while not definitive, it would seem that this forum has a more hard right constituency than even most pro 2nd Amendment supporters.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Citizen militias also have little interest in pludering your own countryside an raping the women of your countrymen.

Read more civil war history focused on Kansas/Missouri.

Mike

 

[igpoobah]

We all pretty much agree that common criminals can get guns any day of the week. That is because they are available to regular citizens. Only the most bankrolled criminals can get the things that are currently banned; from machine guns up to WMDs.

If you give the regular public access to these things, it stands to reason that they would become more easily available to criminals as well.

I realize the pandora's box I am opening by suggesting this. The parallels that run with standard anti-arguments exist in my statement, I realize. Bear with me...

Right now, the guy that runs the methlab down the road is very, very unlikely to have a WMD in the shed behind the trailer. If they were available to JQP, it stands to reason that he would be more likley to be able to get his hands on one. The damage one person can do with a firearm in each hand is fairly limited. A nuclear bomb on the other hand....

Thoughts?

BTW: I voted for tanks

No one has any business with a WMD.

 

[Vector]

Just as an FYI, I did not vote in the poll lest it might influence someone to vote more hard line than I did, just so they would not be aligned with a gun grabbing Brady bunch member.

When I put in the WMD and butter knife categories I tried to think of the two most extreme positions on either side of the issue. While I was afraid that a couple people might vote either one as a joke, it would seem that some are very serious. While I do not feel the need to label those who picked either category, they are obviously well outside of the mainstream views of average Americans.