There are already plenty of safeguards in place as far as legislation goes. More legislation won't fix anything.

For example, for the priviledge (I can't spell today) of owning a fully automatic weapon, you go through a background check that includes things like phone calls to your neighbors, your employer, your family, your local law enforcement agency and the law enforcement agencies and neighbors in every place you've ever lived. You pay an exorbitant fee to the feds, and essentially sign away your right to privacy; they have the right to require you to produce the weapon for their inspection at any time, night or day. They also don't need a warrant to enter your home to look for it. This is to prevent you from selling it to someone who hasn't jumped through the hoops (or parting it out).

If after all that you still want to rob a liquor store with it, your mindset isn't the type that would've made it through the initial psych eval/background check. It's easier to gain entry to NORAD than it is to legally own a machine gun. Rest easy.

I think all weapons are "offensive." That's the whole point of a weapon. All weapons can also be used in self-defense. That applies even to WMD's which are used in self-defence as a deterrent.

My point is that everybody draws a line somewhere. For you, Wolf, the line is drawn somewhere between WMDs and grenade launchers. I personally would draw the line between handguns and single shot rifles, banning concealable handguns but allowing the rifles. Mr. Noodle seems to be saying that there should be no line at all.

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.

A line currently exists that says what weapons you can own, and what weapons you can't. Gun control advocates are trying to move that line in one direction. The NRA is trying to move it in the other direction. Your previous post makes it sound like you think there should be no line at all.

Oh I see what you're saying now.

To answer your question, I think the line should be drawn on behaviors, not on inanimate objects. The line on what can and cannot be legally owned has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone is a murderer, and casting a wide net over all gun owners will not prevent violent crime. If someone intends to hurt someone else, they'll do it; they won't stop to consider whether the instrument of their violence has the appropriate paperwork. Moving the line all the way to the right won't create more murderers.

Of course, someone who obeys the law will still comply if the line moves all the way to the left. Whoever keeps track of such things will note that X number of guns have now been made illegal, and falsely believe that they are no longer available for criminals to use. Not so -- most of the people who surrendered the guns weren't going to use them illegally in the first place.

I understand, I think.

While I disagree with your position, I certainly respect its internal consistency. I'm amazed at your position though, because it is contrary to our current legal system and is so far removed from my own ideas on the matter. I think that some weapons are so powerful, they shouldn't be placed into the hands of the general public. Even Wolf agrees that WMDs, for example, shouldn't be available to the general public. My basic point is that the government should draw a line banning some weapons. Reasonable people may disagree where that line belongs, but I think there should be a line.

To address your other point. I will concede that if the government bans guns (which is unlikely), only the law abiding citizens will turn over their guns. Yes, there will be guns in the hands of criminals for some time, but they will gradually be phased out as the guns get old and stop working and as criminals are captured and guns are confiscated. You don't see tommy guns being used for crime any longer. The same would eventually be true of today's guns. I have no idea what that phase-out period would look like. It might be messy, since the criminals would have the guns and the law abiding citizens would not. But, I imagine it would look like the times we currently live in, since most armed robberies, etc. are currently committed against unarmed people.

Tommy guns were never really used for crime as much as the movies suggest. they are unreliable and inefficient. and, yes i have fired a few different Thompson's - they are pretty cool, but not that commonly used.

it would be no more possible to "phase out" gun use from the criminal element than eliminating illegal drug use. and moreover, if a real gun ban was issued, many otherwise lawabiding citizens would not turn in their guns. i for one, would visit the local gunshows and buy every Sig and H&K .40 i could get my grubby hands on.

i am not a member of the NRA or anything like that, i'm just a guy that knows if we pull guns away from the lawabiding citizens there is nothing left to protect them from the criminals. you certainly can't rely on the law enforcement community.

that being said, i don't really see any reason for an average citizen to be able to purchase fully .50cal fully auto, bradleys, anthrax, etc.

I wasn't clear. I don't think that there should be NO line, but I think the line we already have is sufficient -- maybe even slightly zealous. I do question whether or not the federal government should be the entity calling the shots (bwah!) in the matter. If they have any say at all, it should only be where national security is concerned. So WMDs are in their purview. Small arms are not, unless the quantity and quality is sufficient to pose an actual threat to the nation as a whole. Otherwise, let the states handle it.

I think people have a huge misconception about the role of the federal government. The point of the constitution is to protect the people from their government — not the other way around.

That's why privately owned firearms should always remain legal.


.50 cal fully auto, too. Who the hell is going to pack one of those into a 7-11 when you have all that money and cigarettes to carry out? Sell the gun and BUY the smokes.