Ignorance on firearms and no im not talking about statistics...

[rathi]

Getting back to the point of the thread, the real issue is that many of our gun laws are written by clueless idiots. We are arguing about the legality of howitzers, but the reality is that you have to tiptoe around what sort of grip combo's are legal.

Several moronic laws that I can think of:

The 12.7mm caliber limit for bullets: This law is so bad they have to add stupid loopholes on purpose just so shotguns and slug guns are banned without reason. Bullet diameter has nothing to do with power, muzzle energy is only actual way to determine destructiveness.

The 16.5 inch barrel limit for guns with stocks: You can own pistols with short barrels and rifles with stocks. However, somehow combining them is illegal? I don't even get what they are trying to accomplish here.

The 18 inch barrel limit for shotguns: What is wrong with having a shorter barreled shotgun? Does taking the rifling off somehow make a weapon more dangerous?

 

[Hoplite]

Getting back to the point of the thread, the real issue is that many of our gun laws are written by clueless idiots. We are arguing about the legality of howitzers, but the reality is that you have to tiptoe around what sort of grip combo's are legal.

Then perhaps you should contact the sponsors of the law and ask why they felt it was important to have that particular law.

The 18 inch barrel limit for shotguns: What is wrong with having a shorter barreled shotgun? Does taking the rifling off somehow make a weapon more dangerous?

This actually has a grounding in reality. Shorter barreled shotguns are far easier to conceal.

If you want REAL ludicrousness, look up the laws on non-firearm weapons. Especially in California, the vast majority of our laws against any sort of melee weapon are based on the fact that that particular weapon was once used by or associated with some sort of criminal enterprise in the US.

 

[rathi]

Then perhaps you should contact the sponsors of the law and ask why they felt it was important to have that particular law.

The national firearms act was passed in 1934, everyone who was ever involved with it is long dead.

This actually has a grounding in reality. Shorter barreled shotguns are far easier to conceal.

As opposed to pistols? I fail to see why smoothbore barrels become dangerous when short when rifled ones are perfectly legal. You can buy revolvers capable of firing shotshells. The useful range of such a weapon makes the pellet spread from rifling irrelevant.

If you want REAL ludicrousness, look up the laws on non-firearm weapons. Especially in California, the vast majority of our laws against any sort of melee weapon are based on the fact that that particular weapon was once used by or associated with some sort of criminal enterprise in the US.

I am aware. Its actually easier to get a gun than a telescoping baton. Knife laws are some byzantine combination of folder vs fixed with different blade length being legal and exemptions all over the place for kitchen knives.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Except a .50 bullet is not a computer nor is it clothing. It's a weapon.

So, what difference does that make?
Most people own and shoot .50 caliber rifles for recreation purposes.
What makes you the grand arbitrator of, who needs to own what fire arm?

How about this, we make illegal, only the most commonly used caliber weapons, that are used to kill people.

Guess what?
.50 rifles won't be on that list.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Sure, but where does that end? What about someone who wants nuclear weapons, a bazooka or functional howitzer, etc?

Nuclear weapons cannot be fired safely without causing harm to an innocent person.
I have no problems with bazooka ownership nor with a howitzer.

What about someone who wants to own a coal-fired power plant in their back yard?

People already own these, what's wrong with that?

What about a car that theoretically cannot operate *BELOW* 80mph?

Why not, they will be limited to what streets they can drive on though.

What about someone who wants to own slaves?

That is outlawed and for good reason.
Don't use so much hyperbole next time.

If they want it and are willing to part with their money for it, who are you to stop them?
In reality, as a part of a cooperative society, there will *ALWAYS* be limitations to what you can own. That's just simple reality.

There has to be a reason, based on facts, to restrict ownership of something, like a nuclear weapon or slavery.
Banning weapons because their bullets are big is stupid.

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry but this is utter nonsense. Gun accidents are relatively very rare, and have been falling for a century. Even the most conservative of estimates of defensive use would make the ratio of defensive-use-to-accidents 50 to 1.

The idea that most guns are used against their owners is a fallacy perpetuated by the Brady group and other anti-gunners, and has been thoroughly debunked.

That's good to see. Thanks for correcting me on those. But I do think that negligent discharges are far too common; I hear about them plenty.

I still think that most gun owners are dangerously ignorant about the weapons they own. Perhaps that is because of my extensive training, but I think we need to get serious about gun-safety education and stop believing that guns can be dealth with via demonization.

Just so noone gets the wrong impression, I'm very pro-gun and think the vast majority of restrictions are dumb. I'm also against requiring registration for firearms.

 

[Christopher]

The Nuclear weapon argument is so overused these days. Nuclear Weapons are entirely indiscriminate. Small arms are not. Explosive weapons are less discriminate than small arms, so there is a philosophical and logical argument to be made about whether certain types of weapons should be banned based on the inability to discriminate between targets. Seeing how easy it is to make relatively powerful explosives out of modern household items, I don't understand why so many people get so worked up about allowing factory produced explosives either way.

The meaning of the Second Amendment bears no impact on whether or not such a right would be logically sound. If the Second Amendment truly did support a right to bear Nuclear Weapons, this would not be grounds to interpret the Second Amendment a different way (or ignore it). That's a nonsensical way of interpreting a law. If you disagree with an Ammendment/Law, then change it.

 

[Goshin]

That's good to see. Thanks for correcting me on those. But I do think that negligent discharges are far too common; I hear about them plenty.

I still think that most gun owners are dangerously ignorant about the weapons they own. Perhaps that is because of my extensive training, but I think we need to get serious about gun-safety education and stop believing that guns can be dealth with via demonization.

Just so noone gets the wrong impression, I'm very pro-gun and think the vast majority of restrictions are dumb. I'm also against requiring registration for firearms.

Back when I was a cop, we had four instances of fellow officers having negligent discharges with their weapons. Three of them were former military. I'd have to say that AD's are far from exclusive to civilians. (Fortunately no one was harmed).

There's always someone who does something stupid with their weapons, just as there is always someone doing something stupid in an automobile.

However, I train private citizens in defensive handgunning (among other things), and I have found that most people with concealed carry permits at least, tend to be very serious about firearms and seek out advanced training. Many of them are far better with firearms than the average cop or soldier, because they seek out qual training and put in lots of practice.

The fact that the media overhypes every "stupid" incident makes it seem far worse than it really is.

 

[ecofarm]

You provide training. Of course most of the people you come into contact with are interested in being well-trained. Try hanging out in a low-rent apartment complex near a university and see how many of your neighbors know squat about the weapons they own.

You speak well on behalf of gun-owners and I appreciate your perspective; however, I find that most problems with firearms are a result of insufficient training. Pretending that the average gun owner is responsible enough to get even minimal training is not helping gun-rights; I think we (as gun owners/advocates) need to openly address this shortcoming and promote gun education as necessary even for casual owners.


ps. I'm not just ex-military, I'm ex-elite-infantry. My weapons training goes far beyond and is much more extensive than the average soldier. If someone had a ND in my platoon, we kicked their ass. I hope the NDs in your department were REMFs and not giving the infantry a bad name.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

There is some legitimate fear that drives gun control. That is, gun owners are irresponsible. This is true to some extent and it is why most guns are used against their owners... not because guns are particularly apt (as weapons go) to be turned upon someone but because people buy a gun and fail to obtain even a modicrum of training. It is also why there are so many gun "accidents", or negligent discharges.

As one who at times is/has been a CQB, pistol, carbine instructor I agree that training is AS important putting the CC down on the counter, however, your statistics and scenarios are completely wrong.

We should focus on gun (safety) training more and on red-tape control less. The source of the problems (or accidents) is not guns or people, it's a lack of respect and training for the weapon.

Safety is only one aspect of training, and does not help one learn how to use or defend oneself with a firearm... Home defense, and learning how to "fight" with a firearm is paramount.

Our kids are taught about sex in public school when they are what, 8? But at the same age they could encounter a weapon ("hey, look what my parents have") and not have any idea the respect and safety it deserves - having never handled a weapon, fired one or really been taught about them (other than "Don't mess with them at all - because I say so!", which we all know is just fantastic advice for a curious kid).
"Cool, let me point it" *bang*... that's our fault, not the weapon's.

I agree in principle, but this is such a rare occurence that I don't think it warrants the attention we blow it up as. I think 14 died last year from this sort of scenario.

I'm not underhandedly trying to militarize our public schools, but gun safety is a course best taken as early as possible. Perhaps proof of training should be required for the purchase of a weapon, but I don't like registration (of training or firearms), thus that's not so easy.


So, what do you guys think? Should gun safety be a class in public school, including a field-trip to the range? Not a whole semester kind of thing, but like sex-ed is incorporated.

yes it should.

 

[Goobieman]

By that logic, let's let people have RPGs and thermonuclear weapons because, hey, you never know when the situation might warrant it.

You're missing the point. You're arguing that because -you- see no need for sometthing that said something should not be available to others, regardless of their right to have it. If what -you- see as 'necessary' is a valid determiner, then what -I- see as necessary is as well. -I- see no need to burn the flag, and so...

Yeah, in Liberia.

And everywhere else.
Perhaps you could tell us exactly what makes an AK47 incapable of effective use as a self/home defense weapon.

Ah yes, the infamous Kevlar Bears.

Nice attempt at a dodge. Fact of the matter is that the7.62x39 rouns is well-suited to any number of North American game animals and that the rifle itself is capable of acceptable accuracy at the ranges that said cartidge would be used.
And so, there's absoutely no teeth to the argument that you cannot hunt with an AK.
Never mind that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

There is no reason for a civilian to need a military weapon when any task he may require the AK-47 to perform can be performed above or beyond his needs with a civilian weapon.

Psst... Most AKs in the US -are- civilian weapons.

And what, pray tell, would a civilian need it for?

Making long--range shots on targets that require considerable accuracy and power.

This has always bugged me. Our founding fathers were not stupid men, surely they realized that weapons technology would advance at some point and bring about more lethal means of destroying one's neighbors.

Indeed... and because these weapons would be necessary for the militia to do its job, they protected the right to own and use those weapons. Its really that simple.

With that in mind, I seriously doubt they meant the 2nd amendment to cover modern military weapons.

Your conclusiuon here has more to do with your unsupprtable preconceptions than the minds, words and intent of the prople that wrote the Constitution.

 

[Goobieman]

This actually has a grounding in reality. Shorter barreled shotguns are far easier to conceal.

And yet, there is no limit on the barrel lenght of a shotgun that has no stock. Thet are considered class-III "Any other weapons" and are subject to a $5 tax stamp, compared to the $200 stamp for a short-barreled shotgun w/ stock.

 

[Goobieman]

I still think that most gun owners are dangerously ignorant about the weapons they own.

This is -absolutely- unsupportable.

 

[Cephus]

Nothong in my post or in my position supports this.
I said that the term cleasrly covers all classes of firearms, which is inarguable. If you want to discuss whatever else it might cover - grenades, AT4s, mortars - be my guest, but as doing so in no way does anything to negate the argumen that all classes of firearms are 'arms' under the 2nd. I shant participate.

But clearly it covered canons, which were demonstrably owned by private citizens of the age, so things like grenades and mortars and bazookas, etc. ought to be logically covered. The problem is, you're not willing to examine things logically, you've got your beliefs and damn it, nobody is going to budge you.

Than what? The court was very clear about the context in which the term was to be interpreted, and the standards by which the term 'arms" was to be judged.
I suggest you go read US v Miller.

Good for them. It doesn't mean they're necessarily right, just that it's legally binding. Legality and reality rarely have much to do with each other.

 

[Goobieman]

But clearly it covered canons, which were demonstrably owned by private citizens of the age, so things like grenades and mortars and bazookas, etc. ought to be logically covered. The problem is, you're not willing to examine things logically, you've got your beliefs and damn it, nobody is going to budge you.

No... what I said was that regardless if the 2nd protects cannons and mortars and grenades and whatever else you care to mention, said protection of those weapons is immaterial to the fact that that is -certainly- covers any and every class of firearm. As such, I really do not care if you argee one side or the other regarding those things as whether they are protected or not, all firearms ARE protected.

So, feel free to argue about cannons and mortars and AT4s -- regardless of your position or your conclusion, all classes of -firearms- are protected by the 2nd.

Good for them. It doesn't mean they're necessarily right, just that it's legally binding.

Maybe you'd care to show how the court got it wrong, especiually given the argument you've presented.

 

[Goshin]

You provide training. Of course most of the people you come into contact with are interested in being well-trained. Try hanging out in a low-rent apartment complex near a university and see how many of your neighbors know squat about the weapons they own.

You speak well on behalf of gun-owners and I appreciate your perspective; however, I find that most problems with firearms are a result of insufficient training. Pretending that the average gun owner is responsible enough to get even minimal training is not helping gun-rights; I think we (as gun owners/advocates) need to openly address this shortcoming and promote gun education as necessary even for casual owners.


ps. I'm not just ex-military, I'm ex-elite-infantry. My weapons training goes far beyond and is much more extensive than the average soldier. If someone had a ND in my platoon, we kicked their ass. I hope the NDs in your department were REMFs and not giving the infantry a bad name.

One Ranger, one Marine, the other I don't know.

I've known lots of gun owners, I come from a state where it is slightly less common than breathing. I've known a couple who were idiots, and a few who were rather ignorant and/or careless, but the large majority that I've met were careful gunhandlers with substantial knowlege in their field of intrest. This being the South, a good many of them were ex-military and a fair number of those were combat arms.

Low-rent apartment complexes near universities are not my sort of scene. Most of the people I hang out with are former military, ex-cops, former or current first-responders or their wives and kids: "my kind of people". But yeah I do know some ordinary average guys and rednecks, and some of them will surprise you with the extent of their knowlege and skills with arms.

While I think "problem gun-owners" is an often-overstated problem, I agree that many gun owners could use more training than they get, and I'm all for them getting it.

Where I encounter bone-deep-stupidity I take evasive action; when I encounter simple ignorance I attempt to enlighten and educate. I've trained a lot of people in the basics for FREE just for the sake of raising the training level of the average gun owner. Sometimes I do more advanced classes for people in my club for free also.



The best current-service shooter I've known is actually an Army medic, of all things. He's got his trigger-time in and is looking to hook up with a special team. This young man can put rounds downrange so fast on semi it sounds like full auto, but punch out the target center even at that speed. I've seen him turn Rangers and Marines green with envy at his shooting skills.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is -absolutely- unsupportable.

agreed, as a former three time all-american, US Jr Shooting team member and Master Class IPSC competitior I laugh at military types who think they have a monopoly on firearm skills. When my nephew-a captain in the special forces who did two combat tours while a ranger needs help with shooting, he calls up his uncle turtle when he's on leave and we go to the range

 

[TurtleDude]

One Ranger, one Marine, the other I don't know.

I've known lots of gun owners, I come from a state where it is slightly less common than breathing. I've known a couple who were idiots, and a few who were rather ignorant and/or careless, but the large majority that I've met were careful gunhandlers with substantial knowlege in their field of intrest. This being the South, a good many of them were ex-military and a fair number of those were combat arms.

Low-rent apartment complexes near universities are not my sort of scene. Most of the people I hang out with are former military, ex-cops, former or current first-responders or their wives and kids: "my kind of people". But yeah I do know some ordinary average guys and rednecks, and some of them will surprise you with the extent of their knowlege and skills with arms.

While I think "problem gun-owners" is an often-overstated problem, I agree that many gun owners could use more training than they get, and I'm all for them getting it.

Where I encounter bone-deep-stupidity I take evasive action; when I encounter simple ignorance I attempt to enlighten and educate. I've trained a lot of people in the basics for FREE just for the sake of raising the training level of the average gun owner. Sometimes I do more advanced classes for people in my club for free also.



The best current-service shooter I've known is actually an Army medic, of all things. He's got his trigger-time in and is looking to hook up with a special team. This young man can put rounds downrange so fast on semi it sounds like full auto, but punch out the target center even at that speed. I've seen him turn Rangers and Marines green with envy at his shooting skills.

the best shooters in the military were top shooters before they joined-people like 2008 olympic gold medalist (skeet) Vince Hancock who was recruited to the USAMU in fort benning after he won the world cup at age 16. I was recruited to the same unit after I won national juniors but I went to law school instead. Matt Dryke-USAMU-1984 gold medalist-men's skeet was a national champion prior to joining the army. Athens silver medalist, Mike Anti was one of my roommates at the USOTC many years ago-at 14 he was already predicted to be a world champion level shooter-he went to the army after winning a ton of nationals.

I shot against most of the USAMU types before they joined the army and afterwards. They get better in the army because taxpayers and funding their training. But the number of people who became world class shots after joining the army is rather small

 

[Hoplite]

You're missing the point. You're arguing that because -you- see no need for sometthing that said something should not be available to others, regardless of their right to have it. If what -you- see as 'necessary' is a valid determiner, then what -I- see as necessary is as well. -I- see no need to burn the flag, and so...

Biiiiig difference between burning flags and .50 bullets, bucko.

As I see it, heavy weapons are not NECESSARY for what the average person needs a firearm to do. When you start talking about putting weapons into people's hands, necessity becomes an issue for me and if you dont NEED Black Talons then "I want!" is not justification enough for me to be convinced you should be allowed to have them.

The potential for mis-use becomes much more discomforting when you start looking at weapons like an AK-47 and thus mis-use can be minimized by restricting gun ownership by the general populace to firearms you actually need to get a job done. "Because I want it" is not sufficient reason for me to be ok with putting anything you want in your hands, that's the mentality of a child.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly what makes an AK47 incapable of effective use as a self/home defense weapon.

Nothing, it's quite an intimidating weapon and would be a good home defense weapon. That said, you dont need something like an AK-47 to defend your home in any first-world country when a shotgun or pistol will do the same job.

Nice attempt at a dodge. Fact of the matter is that the7.62x39 rouns is well-suited to any number of North American game animals and that the rifle itself is capable of acceptable accuracy at the ranges that said cartidge would be used.
And so, there's absoutely no teeth to the argument that you cannot hunt with an AK.
Never mind that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

I never said the AK was a bad hunting weapon. My point is you do not need a 30 round, fully automatic, assault rifle to hunt.

Psst... Most AKs in the US -are- civilian weapons.

Now, are you talking about war trophy 47's or ones that have been modified so as to be legal to sell to the general public?

Making long--range shots on targets that require considerable accuracy and power.

Why use an AK? It has a 350-400 meter effective range with semi-automatic as opposed to, say, a Remington 700 with a .270 round will serve you 5-600 meters and drop a moose with 180 grains? (IIRC)

Indeed... and because these weapons would be necessary for the militia to do its job, they protected the right to own and use those weapons. Its really that simple.

Why do you need paramilitary weapons to arm a militia? Successful revolutions have been fought with less, if the Cubans did it, so can you.

Your conclusiuon here has more to do with your unsupprtable preconceptions than the minds, words and intent of the prople that wrote the Constitution.

Granted I have no direct quotes, but to me, using simple logic seems more reliable than assuming the founders meant we could ALL have ANY weapon we wanted.

And yet, there is no limit on the barrel lenght of a shotgun that has no stock. Thet are considered class-III "Any other weapons" and are subject to a $5 tax stamp, compared to the $200 stamp for a short-barreled shotgun w/ stock.

the National Firearms Act (NFA) it is illegal for a private citizen to possess a sawed-off modern smokeless powder shotgun (a barrel length less than 18 in. or 46 cm and an overall length less than 26 inches) without a tax-stamped permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which requires a background check and a $200.00 fee for every transfer. However, if the weapon was manufactured by a licensed builder, with a short barrel and no stock, the transfer fee is $5.
United States Code: Title 26,5845. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

A shotgun is legally defined as a shoulder mounted firearm that fires shot. Shotguns and shotgun receivers that have never had a buttstock of any type installed are not shotguns, as they cannot be shoulder mounted. Therefore, cutting one of these below the 18" barrel and/or 26" overall length cannot produce a SBS as the firearm was never a shotgun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives recognizes these firearms as being a smooth bore handgun which is an Any Other Weapon (AOW). Unlike a SBS, an AOW only carries a $5.00 tax and can be moved interstate without Federal approval. However, to maintain its AOW status, one may generally not have a buttstock (making it a SBS) or a rifled slug barrel (making it a Destructive Device (DD) if the bore is over 0.5"). Both SBS and DD weapons require a $200 transfer tax and prior Federal approval to transport interstate.

State and local laws also apply to this.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

As I see it, heavy weapons are not NECESSARY for what the average person needs a firearm to do. When you start talking about putting weapons into people's hands, necessity becomes an issue for me and if you dont NEED Black Talons then "I want!" is not justification enough for me to be convinced you should be allowed to have them.

These weapons have been in the hands of civilians for a long time, with no problems resulting.
What is wrong with them owning it?

"I want" is always a fine justification because there is no bill of needs.
It is a bill of rights.

The potential for mis-use becomes much more discomforting when you start looking at weapons like an AK-47 and thus mis-use can be minimized by restricting gun ownership by the general populace to firearms you actually need to get a job done. "Because I want it" is not sufficient reason for me to be ok with putting anything you want in your hands, that's the mentality of a child.

Then don't get one, the great majority of people who own these do not do anything illegal with them.
Again, with that knowledge, what is the problem?

Nothing, it's quite an intimidating weapon and would be a good home defense weapon. That said, you dont need something like an AK-47 to defend your home in any first-world country when a shotgun or pistol will do the same job.

Says you.
If I want one to defend my home, that should be my choice.
It shouldn't have to pass by your subjective view of needs before it can be approved for me to own.
While we are on this road of judging what people should own based on need, lets go down the list and restrict ownership of everything to need.

Cars, homes, televisions, clothing, computers etc.
No one needs all of these things, to say you want them is just childish. :roll:

I never said the AK was a bad hunting weapon. My point is you do not need a 30 round, fully automatic, assault rifle to hunt.

A semi auto AK is perfectly useful for hunting.
Just exchange the 30 rd clip for a 5 rounder.

Now, are you talking about war trophy 47's or ones that have been modified so as to be legal to sell to the general public?

Both are in the hands of the civilian public.
Oddly enough they aren't used in crimes, practically ever.

Why use an AK? It has a 350-400 meter effective range with semi-automatic as opposed to, say, a Remington 700 with a .270 round will serve you 5-600 meters and drop a moose with 180 grains? (IIRC)

Unless you in an open field, 500-600 meters is unnecessary.
300-400 is perfectly fine in a wooded environment.

Not to mention that a Remington 700 is about $500-700 while a brand new semi auto AK is around $350.

Why do you need paramilitary weapons to arm a militia? Successful revolutions have been fought with less, if the Cubans did it, so can you.

Because they are more useful than ball and musket.
It sounds like you're answering your own question.

Granted I have no direct quotes, but to me, using simple logic seems more reliable than assuming the founders meant we could ALL have ANY weapon we wanted.

Yep, anything that doesn't fall into, what I would think would be the "clear and present danger" scenario.
Like nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons.

 

[Hoplite]

These weapons have been in the hands of civilians for a long time, with no problems resulting.
What is wrong with them owning it?

I dont feel it's a good idea to have a populace armed to the point where it can create problems for law enforcement. I dont object to an armed populace, but I think people mistake "having the biggest gun around" for the ability to deploy that weapon successfully in any sort of militia or revolutionary action.

As I have said before, revolutions were carried out by fewer people with fewer arms with marked success. Victory in a revolution is not about force of arms or the technological capabilities of either side; tactics and strength of will determine who will, in the end, triumph.

"I want" is always a fine justification because there is no bill of needs.
It is a bill of rights.

Then I ask you, why do we not make ALL military hardware available to the general public?

Then don't get one, the great majority of people who own these do not do anything illegal with them.
Again, with that knowledge, what is the problem?

I dont trust human beings to run around with military grade firepower and not mis-use it and I dont want to be around when someone learns that lesson.

Says you.
If I want one to defend my home, that should be my choice.
It shouldn't have to pass by your subjective view of needs before it can be approved for me to own.

If what you're doing doesnt have consequences for me, you're right. However a population armed with heavy weaponry creates problems for those who AREN'T armed.

While we are on this road of judging what people should own based on need, lets go down the list and restrict ownership of everything to need.

Cars, homes, televisions, clothing, computers etc.
No one needs all of these things, to say you want them is just childish. :roll:

We arent discussing cars, homes, television, clothing, or computers. Please stay on topic.

A semi auto AK is perfectly useful for hunting.
Just exchange the 30 rd clip for a 5 rounder.

Again, I question the need of an assault rifle for hunting game

Both are in the hands of the civilian public.
Oddly enough they aren't used in crimes, practically ever.

No, because their availability is limited.

Unless you in an open field, 500-600 meters is unnecessary.
300-400 is perfectly fine in a wooded environment.

Not to mention that a Remington 700 is about $500-700 while a brand new semi auto AK is around $350.

Shop around more
Remington 700 7mm mag w/ Bushnell 3200 Elite scop : Bolt Action at GunBroker.com

If your range requirements arent that high, you can afford to look for far cheaper rifles that will accomplish the same goal.

Because they are more useful than ball and musket.
It sounds like you're answering your own question.

Dozens of revolutions have been fought successfully in modern times without a populace armed to the teeth.

Yep, anything that doesn't fall into, what I would think would be the "clear and present danger" scenario.
Like nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons.

So any conventional weapon is acceptable?

 

[jamesrage]

gun control is not intended to control criminals.

This is why I think anti-2nd amendment laws were created in the first place. The idea that making something illegal to deter someone who already breaks the law should be a laughable idea to most people. This is why things fire arms registrations, waiting periods, permits/licenses, finger printing, limits and etc are only aimed at law abiding citizens. Because no criminal in his right mind is going to do any of those things for a firearm that he is going to use in the commission of a crime. Besides that a criminal can probably buy a firearm cheaper than he guy one in the store legally. This is why most 2nd amendment proponents know that anti-2nd amendment laws are designed to disarm the law abiding,to prevent the law abiding from being armed and nothing more.

 

[Deuce]

This is why I think anti-2nd amendment laws were created in the first place. The idea that making something illegal to deter someone who already breaks the law should be a laughable idea to most people. This is why things fire arms registrations, waiting periods, permits/licenses, finger printing, limits and etc are only aimed at law abiding citizens. Because no criminal in his right mind is going to do any of those things for a firearm that he is going to use in the commission of a crime. Besides that a criminal can probably buy a firearm cheaper than he guy one in the store legally. This is why most 2nd amendment proponents know that anti-2nd amendment laws are designed to disarm the law abiding,to prevent the law abiding from being armed and nothing more.

There are valid reasons for some of the things you listed. For instance, the waiting period is pretty clear, it helps reduce a crime of passion. A guy who spontaneously decides to waste that freaking boss of his shouldn't be able to walk in angry and walk out with a gun. That's the theory anyway, and it is of course impossible to really prove that such laws have actually saved lives. Registration and fingerprinting can help law enforcement in an investigation: The owner can be ruled out as as suspect (or BECOME a suspect) and you can also prove whether a gun was stolen.

 

[jamesrage]

There are valid reasons for some of the things you listed. For instance, the waiting period is pretty clear, it helps reduce a crime of passion. A guy who
spontaneously decides to waste that freaking boss of his shouldn't be able to walk in angry and walk out with a gun..

Couldn't he just pick up a newspaper and buy a gun from a individual? I would also think that if he was pissed enough to want to murder his boss then this anger or rage has built up over a period of time and is not going to suddenly go away.

That's the theory anyway, and it is of course impossible to really prove that such laws have actually saved lives.

So there is no evidence to support the claims.

Registration and fingerprinting can help law enforcement in an investigation: The owner can be ruled out as as suspect (or BECOME a suspect) and you can also prove whether a gun was stolen

A fingerprint or even a firearm being registered to someone does not prove guilt. What are the statistics on these things solving crime? Would you support registering and finger printing everyone to buy a computer,after all it could be helped "to solve online piracy,stalking and other crimes"?

 

[Goobieman]

There are valid reasons for some of the things you listed. For instance, the waiting period is pretty clear, it helps reduce a crime of passion. A guy who spontaneously decides to waste that freaking boss of his shouldn't be able to walk in angry and walk out with a gun. That's the theory anyway, and it is of course impossible to really prove that such laws have actually saved lives.

I wonder what thos epoeple who support a waitiing persion for guns woudl think of a similar waiting persion for abortion, institutted for the same reason - to prevent people from making rash, unthoughtful decisions in the heat of passion and at the spur of the moment. I mean, if it saves just one life, isnlt it worth it?

Registration and fingerprinting can help law enforcement in an investigation

So can mandatory GPS tracking chips, telling the government where anyone and everone is at any given time.