Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available?

[myrkul]

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Rights don't need proving.

[pyra-proxy]

Rights don't need proving.

If your incompetence with using something can infringe on my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then yes some rights do need "proving" .... but really what we are debating here is the existence of revocable rights vs. privileges .... It's my belief that I and all people are born with the ability to do pretty much what they will so long as it is not a hindrance upon someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... if I was so incompetent at firearms that I could not prove my competence to handle them with a simple certification program then I should not be allowed to legally purchase them, nor should someone legally be able to sell them to me.... but say I had one given to me as a gift or inherited from a deceased grand parent, no one should be able to stop me from taking ownership as it is not a sales transaction.  If I choose to then go out and use it no one should be able to stop me assuming I am not doing something to infringe on someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ... if I prove that I was truly incompetent and irresponsible the law should throw the book at me for operating firearms while incompetent ... up to and including manslaughter (even if all I did was pull a bad version of a Cheney) but that's for the judge to decide.

[myrkul]

Rights don't need proving.

If your incompetence with using something can infringe on my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

If I infringe, I lose that right. Simple, easy, and requires only defensive force.

[TheButterZone]

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

[pyra-proxy]

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

And this is where what I said does not match your example, I said no one should be banned from proving their competence (and to clarify further to enable the sale/purchase of firearms), those cities violate what I proposed here and look what happened to them.  What I offer is allowing all to own/use them, but restrict acquisition based upon proven competence including mass allowance of concealed weapons, my restrictions only restrict a person buying/selling them if the purchaser cannot certify with simple gun safety practices which are reflective of the type of weapon purchased

[ElectricMucus]

Those cities didn't violate what you've proposed, the test is simply too difficult for the average person to pass. All you have to do is pass the test required to wear a blue suit and a badge and you can happily own and carry firearms.

Can you not see the problem with "proving their competence", i.e. a test? A test requires an authority. If an authority can enforce a test, they can enforce any kind of test they want!

I see many "freedom" advocates fall for this, pardon the term, bullshit.

Authority must be justified.

[KWH]

"........shall not be infringed."
Notice there are no conditions in there, none at all? 2nd Amendment is short and to the point.

[myrkul]

Those cities didn't violate what you've proposed, the test is simply too difficult for the average person to pass. All you have to do is pass the test required to wear a blue suit and a badge and you can happily own and carry firearms.

Can you not see the problem with "proving their competence", i.e. a test? A test requires an authority. If an authority can enforce a test, they can enforce any kind of test they want!

I see many "freedom" advocates fall for this, pardon the term, bullshit.

Authority must be justified.

That's what we've been saying.

[RodeoX]

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops. 

Why should my rights be limited because of the actions of a few truly insane people?  Go after them, not me. This "blaming the gun" stuff is childish.  Or should we start arresting guns and letting psychopaths go free?

[KWH]

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops. 

Why should my rights be limited because of the actions of a few truly insane people?  Go after them, not me. This "blaming the gun" stuff is childish.  Or should we start arresting guns and letting psychopaths go free?

Next stop: The manufacturers.

[JoelKatz]

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

[Peter Lambert]

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[Lethn]

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

That's actually an indisputable fact if you look at the response time for police in all areas, something people often choose ignore.

[RodeoX]

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

[Dalkore]

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.   

Gang units are the closest things the Police have to proactive because of their use of informants on upcoming turf disputes, drive-bys and organized illegal purchases/sales.  But this only works because gangs operate as an organized unit that you can track.    Most violence is random or spur of the moment so this type of police would not be very useful in combat those situations.

[myrkul]

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.   

You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone.

[Dalkore]

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.   

You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone.

That is one of the best deterrents for sure.

[imanikin]

Double-barrel shotgun! 

[organofcorti]

I vote for private citizens to be able to have all weapons, with the following exceptions:

- No weapons of mass destruction
- No area denial weapons
- No biological weapons

Mainly because I think no one should be allowed to have those kinds of weapons.

Can you define them more explicitly please?

How mass is mass? How much area is area? How biological is biological? Do nano-weapons counts?

[Rassah]

What do you mean by "area denial weapons?' What about automated turrets that give a warning before "denying" entry?