What weapons should Americans be able to keep and bear?

[Guest]

Another thread gave me the idea for this one. The constitution gives Americans the right to keep and bear weapons. To what level of weaponry do you think this applies and why?

[Matt In Oklahoma]

Probably the hardest question of all. Its been debated by friends, family and the general public with many hard feelings. Hopefully that wont be the case here. To make detreminations one must look to the The Bill Of Rights, The Amendments to the Constitution which is what gives us the right, not the Constitution.

This is a choice to be made that I don't envy and those in the Supreme Court that are required to make it have a tough job indeed. If I could make a change it would be to stop the knee jerk reactions after the fact of those who would have you believe the control these type of situations and can guarantee the safety of others and perhaps make decisions ahead of time say upon the new type of weapons arrival. Our Forefathers were not men of ignorance and knew there would be weaponry changes just as they has seen in their lifetimes and they also knew there would be societal changes as well. Rifles often were carried by the men of that time though not in their debates as those were the rules. They did recognize the need for civility and the removal of temptation at times. I'm not a fan of it but some folks don't know their limitations, so it is. Just as they added the Bill of Rights for needed changes as they were not lazy men the current men of power should be looking at these needed changes as well as they come and not afterwards.

The argument of need often arises but it is not always a consideration. It is often compared to driving which I find amusing as driving isn't a right but a privilege and cars are made to run faster than the speed limit which shows the argument of need isn't always valid either.

I believe that men of cool heads and sharp minds should decide based not on feelings but facts. Sadly this is not the case so until proper changes are made we are stuck with the fast knee jerk reactionary choices of those who are closed minded and touchy feely men with weak characters and career ambitions plagued with sheeple love. The only thing worse than this is the rampant indesiciveness of those more concerned with affairs and items that make them feel good as they fail to act beyond their being i-phone zombies locked in with glazed eyes of things that keep them soft as medicated cotton.

[Greg B.]

I don't desire an M1A2 Abrams, but if I have to face one, I want the ability to stop it.

[qrprat77]

"...we are stuck with the fast knee jerk reactionary choices of those who are closed minded and touchy feely men with weak characters and career ambitions plagued with sheeple love."

HOLY COW!
that's the most awesome dose of reality I've ever seen on this issue.

My choice is between the full auto/Grenade choice.
It's a hard one too.
I don't think we can hope for much positive change on the issue until the CHARACTER of people changes. That requires some megadose of love, grace and the Holy Spirit, but I don't want to start sounding stranger than I already do.
I'll say this.
I believe that good people don't need rules about tanks, and bad people won't listen to rules about anything.
Most of us are somewhere between that.

[WiseOwl]

I would have to say what we have now with a mix of the full auto option. I would never be able to afford a full auto but it would be nice to have something to combat what criminals have. A guy I worked with years ago had a MAC -11 full auto. With a dang silencer on it. That silencer weighed a ton. I asked how he got it, he said " from the hood shawty".
I have also know country folks to have FA Ak's. Doesnt matter what kind of laws or restrictions are in place, people will get what they want to get.

I will be stuck with my non defensive Ruger 10/22 bringing PAIN TO THE GAME!!!!!!

We could ban everything and go with some of these beauts http://www.rubberbandguns.com/catalog.htm and these http://web.trinity.edu/x7494.xml

[Doc]

Let me start with, I dont know a lot. But my understanding is that our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms first and formost so that government could not be a tyranny over us. Second, it was so that if necessary every able body man, woman, or child could be called up to defend our great nation. So whereas I voted the full auto option, I am with Greg on the idea that when I am staring down an Abrams, I want to be able to stop it.
The biggest problem that I see is that the government has it all wrong. (big suprise). Instead of spending all the money on controlling guns, they should be training people how to use them.

[Benn Gleck]

The way I see it the arms that God gave us the right to bear and that our forefathers affirmed were the high tech weapons of the day. After all did we not use them to defeat the most powerful army of the day? So if this logic is followed the founders intended us to have weapons that are equal to the standing armies of our times. But thats just my opinion and who am I?

[JUSTIFIED]

I think the Swiss have had it right since the inception of their country:

http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

[tank]

ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

It seems to me that we must go back and visit the mind set and "spirit" in which "The Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" were written. "We the People" had just defeated the "best" army in the world (at that time). How did we do it? Well many many factors came into play but the one we are currently taking about is "Arms". Most of the Militia had "rifles" vs. smoothbored musket. So the Militia had better Range and Accuracy compared to the regulars of the "Red Coats". So they had more fire power than "Standing Army" of the day.

The founders knew this was a major factor in their victory. So to me they put the 2nd there in that spirit, we the people should be allowed to have whatever we can afford without limitations (without UNDO TAXES... Like tax stamp for Full Auto or other such devices). However with advent of WMDs there are some obvious limitations required... But if "we people" were allowed to carry/drive/fly whatever we want (and afford) we could "acquire" or take control of said WMDs if the need were presented.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

I believe that good people don't need rules about tanks, and bad people won't listen to rules about anything.
Most of us are somewhere between that.

So very true...

[JUSTIFIED]

It seems to me that we must go back and visit the mind set and "spirit" in which "The Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" were written. "We the People" had just defeated the "best" army in the world (at that time). How did we do it? Well many many factors came into play but the one we are currently taking about is "Arms". Most of the Militia had "rifles" vs. smoothbored musket. So the Militia had better Range and Accuracy compared to the regulars of the "Red Coats". So they had more fire power than "Standing Army" of the day.

The founders knew this was a major factor in their victory. So to me they put the 2nd there in that spirit, we the people should be allowed to have whatever we can afford without limitations (without UNDO TAXES... Like tax stamp for Full Auto or other such devices). However with advent of WMDs there are some obvious limitations required... But if "we people" were allowed to carry/drive/fly whatever we want (and afford) we could "acquire" or take control of said WMDs if the need were presented.

Not sure I want to be on the same road with a woman putting on her makup while driving a sherman tank to work or a guy texting on his phone while driving a 6x6....chuckle....

[tech]

To make detreminations one must look to the The Bill Of Rights, The Amendments to the Constitution which is what gives us the right, not the Constitution.

Actually, the Bill of Rights merely enumerates some (but not all) God-given rights as a general guideline for the government.

If a weapon is good enough for the US armed forces, then it's good enough for the legal citizens.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

Not sure I want to be on the same road with a woman putting on her makup while driving a sherman tank to work or a guy texting on his phone while driving a 6x6....chuckle....

LOL... I once saw a woman trying to put on make up, drink a cup of coffee and deal with 2 children in the back seat while attempting to "navigate" through rush hour traffic. Needless to say there was some property damage (luckily only property damage) before she got to the 3rd light.

Owning them legally and using them for "daily drivers" 2 different things.

[Grand58742]

I'm thinking an M1 Abrams makes one awesome BOV. Not very subtle or fuel efficient, but it's not like a whole lot is going to stop you.

Tanks got my vote. Frankly, if you can afford to buy it, drive it and feed it, why not be able to have it?