That's an interesting question. I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers felt that parity was the goal, and had no anticipation of the progression that would happen in militarytechnology. At the time of the constitutional congress, private ships carried every type of weapon know to man. The progression of weapons technology has certainly created classes of weapons that one doesn't want simply floating around, because of their potential for overwhelming harm. I am not sure what the founding fathers' opinion would have been.

So, I'll grant you the nuclear weapon restriction. Private citizens should not be allowed to own nukes. Nope, not even me.

But I don't see any other practical need to restrict. I'd be OK with identification and registration, so that if I used my laser guided bomb, you could figure out it was me. But if the government has it, my tax dollars paid for it, and I should be able to buy one too.

Seriously, I don't there's a logical case for restricting the types of weapons owned, if you submit that we have some right to own weapons. That right is contingent upon the assumption that people are generally rational and responsible, and that we will manage expections to that rule as exceptions. But maybe we'll change that, and start treating people as guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that there isn't a logical case doesn't counter the emotional drive to eliminate these items of fear, despite reams of evidence that the problem is something other than the firearm itself. But that's another argument entirely.

Tom, Tom, Tom. PETA may back John Kerry. That doesn't mean John Kerry backs PETA, any more than the fact that skinheads tend to back GW implies that Bush is a nazi.

I for one, can think he's a decent person while still thinking he's not a great president.

Fact to Starcraft Tom,
President Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. I Served as well and I have a number of friends and a cousin who is serving now and they are fed up with Bush!!
So Unless you are a corporate fatcat or wealthy beyond belief why would you want to vote for Bush, It just goes to show how the Republican party is pulling the wool over so many uninformed or ignorant americans eyes.
Peace
Superfly

"... start kicking politicians in the nuts,..."

Finally, someone says something I can relate to.

...ok, nukes are off the table.

Now...do you really want a guy like wackos to own an Abrams or an Apache? Capitol hill would be gone tomorrow (waits for the righty's to stop cheering).....how about Ross Perot with a B-52 full of bombs on the hunt for 'you people'? Sleeping securely now??

With nukes off the table, how could you ever expect to rebel successfully in this day and age? As I said before, I believe the intent of the framers was to check the power of the federal government, 'parity' as you well put it....I submit to you that 'parity' is an impractical, unattainable ideal....

If you agree, why continue to protect that ideal in the face of the overwhelming statistics that indicate, at least to me (please don't make me look them up), there an awful lot of gun owners out there who can't handle the responsibility. Stolen guns, criminal gun dealers etc....?

I think we just made a pretty logical case together for why there ARE some weapons the average person should not be able to own, at least not without adequate, logical controls.

I don't want the John Hinckley's of the world to have easy access to Saturday night specials....or any other paranoid schizophrenic for that matter. I don't think it should be as easy for three suburban youth to acquire fully automatic assault rifles and blow away their school chums as it was.

Without some kind of restrictions, how will we ever keep the guns OUT of the hands of idiots and IN the hands of those who have the right psychological make-up to be a responsible gun owner? The militant NRA stance seems to be let 'em screw it up once THEN restrict priveleges....by then though, the damage is usually done, isn't it?

Hehe....I did title the topic too narrowly, didn't I?

IMO, since this seems to be the major point of contention for sportsmen, its a tangent worth discussing.

Also.....what else would righty have to discuss in the context of this thread since none of them could realistically justify voting for Bush based on his record when it comes to issues that affect sportfishing?

Just trying to be inclusive..... :p .

Stolen guns and crooked dealing are already illegal. Maybe we should practice some enforcement before making more laws to make it "more illegal." It's also illegal to shoot other people now, regardless of the gun type.


It's already very, very difficult for ANYONE to get fully automatic weapons. If you're referencing Columbine, there were no fully automatic weapons used. It seems most people who don't know firearms assume all black guns are full auto.

hey cupo...

I'm sure my knowledge of weaponry is inferior to yours.

Please change 'fully automatic weapons' to 'assault rifles' per your correction. Do you still disagree with my statement or are you just trying to demonstrate your superior knowledge?

All I'm saying is there is something wrong with a system that easily allows dangerous firearms into the hands of unsupervised children.

I must admit I resent being painted as anti-gun or anti-sportsman because I support some controls on the sale of guns.

I have owned guns responsibly for ten years.

I hunt.

I would characterize my stance as 'responsibly pro-gun'. No gun control legislation has ever impacted my ability to purchase a gun I wanted or to hunt, except for maybe having to wait a bit.

The only solution I've ever come up with, which I'm sure you'll shoot full of holes, would be to have a weapons schedule similar to what they have for drugs/narcotics.

It'd take someone with firearm knowledge far superior to mine to do it in a meaningful way BUT.....A (least dangerous) to say E most dangerous....in order to be able to posess the weapons in each succeeding category you have to demonstrate x amount of years responsible use and y amount of education.

I know, you hate it ....

If the solution really is education then it should mandatory.

I think you're right on H20. Can someone give a good reason why normal American citizens need assault rifles? I don't have the #'s in front of me, but the # of gun related Deaths in American from gun shootings compared to other democratic countries is disgusting.

People who don't know guns shouldn't make policy against guns.

Assault Rifles are fully automatic. Most states don't allow those.

What would you rather have someone shooting you with a "hunting" rifle at 500 yds or a having the same person get within a few yds of you with a handgun?

The fact is that some of the most efficient guns are "hunting" guns.

Another example, 10 gauge semiauto hunting shotgun with 00 buck or 22 revolver...

Like I said, people who know little about guns shouldn't make gun policy.

Well, since they would have to buy them, I don't think it's much of a problem. An Apache is what, $21,000,000? Practically speaking, I don't think it's much of an issue. For people with that kind of money, this level of weaponry is already freely available on the international market. If someone wants a Stinger, they can be had, laws or no laws. But, since they cost about 20,000 a pop, they aren't really the issue. So I'm pretty comfortable with this position. The vast majority of people who are killed by guns know their killer, and both killer and victim have prior records of violence. So, if you want to be safe, stay away from people with violent tendencies. Seriously.

That's a subjective term, "awful lot". I know a lot of responsible gun owners. I don't know any that I consider irresponsible. Criminal gun dealers are criminals. Already. Don't need any more laws, just need to focus on the ones we have. Irresponsible handling of guns is already a crime, it's called negligent homicide. Don't need more laws. To the extent that we have the problem, it's simply proof that laws don't dissuade those at the fringes of society. Never have, never will. The fringes are the cost of a heterogenous society.

Um, your slip is showing. Fully automatic weapons are not freely available. The kids at Columbine had some semi-autos. The fact that the guns were semi auto rather than other forms of action mad no difference to the people that were shot. The issue was that those kids were clinically crazy. I'm not sure that's a risk that can be legislated away.


Well, unfortunately, that's kind of what a free society is about, isn't it? Treating us as if we are responsible citizens until we demonstrate otherwise. The Patriot act is offensive because it violates that principle, as are firearms laws, and laws against pot smoking.

Anyway, enough of this. Lets go fish sometime and argue while we're backtrolling.

And you, sir, are also anti-sportsman and anti-fishing because you support controls on the harvesting of fish. You, H2O, are no friend to fisherman.

great stuff in there for me to think about, sh. Thanks, as usual.

Lemme know when you head out my direction....we can think about fishing.

And, just to be clear, I don't get that impression at all. The gun problem is intractable because reasonable people nearer the center, (myself perhaps excluded) are surrounded by zealots on either end of the spectrum, many of whom are deluded, dishonest, and illogical. I understand the NRA's positions. I don't necessarily agree with them.

SH, you should be spending some of this energy here working on your golf game so I don't have take all the money next time we play.

Dawg, I'm trying to earn some money to flash at you so you think you can take it. How many strokes you gonna give me?

Sounds like you two have a personal problem to me!

Damn Timber, we got to get you out of the woods every now and then to curb these dark sided fantasies of yours....

SH, I'll let you know after Saturday, I'll be playing H.P. with a "type A" group of gamblers. Never a dull moment.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by silver hilton:


So, I'll grant you the nuclear weapon restriction. Private citizens should not be allowed to own nukes. Nope, not even me.--silver hilton



Have you really thought this through silver hilton?


What if the anti-weapon lobby came up with an ingenius bill that would allow you to buy nuclear weapons as long as they didn't have a folding stock or a flash surpressor?

Then that same anit-weapon lobby sought to create new laws (that John Kerry would support if the latest focus group suggested it would be pollitically advantages to do so) to punish the responsible, registered law-abiding owners of those nuclear weapons--


rather than focusing their energy on enforcing the laws already on the books that put criminals who illegally obtained those nuclear weapons and attempt to use them in the commission of a crime behind bars with a group of overly friendly cell mates where they belong.


BTW--I'm pretty sure if he thinks it will help get him elected John Kerry will issue a statement that," he grew up with nuclear weapons and still owns a few to this day."

Move along folks, ...nothing to see here. Dontchaknow that we have the best politicians in office who are duly sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States? Oh, yeah, there is this weird idea about the (what do they call it), the bill of rights. I don't have a clue as to what that means.

Gotta go, have 2 beers left in my six-pack and there is a lotta good stuff on TV tonight.