Registration and confiscation

[D1984]

If the goal is to match the federal government first and foremost, though, shouldn't we be legalizing far, far more deadly weaponry than smg's?  Mines, bombs, tanks, armed fighters and choppers, rocket launchers, grenades, nukes, etc... Where does it stop? 

Moda, everything (except for nuclear weapons) you mentioned in that paragraph WAS at least technically legal to own (at least by Federal law...state laws may have been more restrictive) until the GCA in late 1968 and we had no problems with people being grenaded or howitzered to death in the streets. Bazookas, mortars, surplus WWII artillery, and the like were sold (in some cases by mail order catalog) under the same Federal legal restrictions as any single shot rifle. Grenades were not "destructive devices" and were Federally legal to own as well (again, pursuant to any local or state laws) and explosives like dynamite were sold over the counter in many rural hardware stores to anyone who was 18 and above.

We didn't have an epidemic of mass murders with any of the abovementioned weapons/explosives back then despite their easy availability and if we relegalized/deregulated them now I don't think it would cause any major harm.

[Pointedstick]

Maybe the police shouldn't be able to have smg's then... I find it funny that Wayne LaPierre and others that agree with him think we should put armed police in our schools when they claim the 2nd amendment is for defending ourselves against an armed government.

If the goal is to match the federal government first and foremost, though, shouldn't we be legalizing far, far more deadly weaponry than smg's?  Mines, bombs, tanks, armed fighters and choppers, rocket launchers, grenades, nukes, etc... Where does it stop? 

I'm glad you're being honest about your position.  Some gun enthusiasts aren't. .

My reasonable, doable, political position is that the line could probably fall to what police can own as a good compromise. My fundamental philosophical position is that there should be no limits because there should be no government. 

For the record, I disagree with Wayne LaPierre on a lot of things, including the desirability of having uniformed armed police in schools and the appropriateness of blaming the media and video games for violent behavior.

[Pointedstick]

We didn't have an epidemic of mass murders with any of the abovementioned weapons/explosives back then despite their easy availability and if we relegalized/deregulated them now I don't think it would cause any major harm.

Moreover, at the time of this nation's founding, the deadliest weapons available--heavy cannons and warships--were both in widespread private use. The American government made frequent use of private naval vessels and sailors for much of its first several decades. And the muskets and rifles that were cutting-edge military weapons were all legal for civilians to own in unmodified form until 1968. Even the sale and possession of machine guns was totally unencumbered by law until 1934.

This idea that non-military ownership of heavy weapons will turn society into a bloodbath is just not borne out by history in my opinion, and I believe reflects a contradictory opinion of one's fellow man. Think about it: if you could trust a man with a pistol or a rifle, does he become more untrustworthy with a submachine gun? Conversely, if you can't trust a man with an SMG, could you really trust him with even a pistol?

Moda, if it were legal for you to own a machine gun, and you for some bizarre reason, found yourself in possession of one--even if only for as long as it took to get rid of it--would you feel the urge to commit crimes with it that you don't currently feel the urge to commit with your rifles and shotguns? I suspect your neighbors would not be in any more danger from you. But then again, I have a very high opinion of you. 

[RuralEngineer]

Who was suggesting that nobody wants to confiscate.  Some gun rights advocates think we should be able to by fully auto sub machine guns. I don't constantly rip on that wing of the policy argument.

I agree that confiscation is a bad idea, but I think it's a bit of a straw man to suggest gun control advocates are so naive to think nobody wants to confiscate.

The problem is that every time the gun control debate starts up the 2nd amendment advocates cry "they want to confiscate our guns" and the gun control advocates reply "you wingnuts, nobody's talking about confiscation...just "common sense" legislation."  A lot of what's being discussed now in various state legislatures, by elected lawmakers mind you, absolutely reinforces and validates the argument that gun control has been and always will be a paving stone in the path to confiscation.  The "common sense" reform malarkey is a trojan horse, nothing more.  In fact, if I were a gun control advocate I'd be pissed at these morons for jumping the gun.  If they try to do this incrementally they have a shot.  Rush it and they'll be crushed politically.

I had a guy at work today reply to my comment that cops seem to be getting more trigger happy with "well, maybe it has to do with how much more deadly guns have gotten."  In the interest of work appropriate conversation I declined to ridicule him and point out that semi-automatic technology has existed in its modern form since pre-WWII and almost every single last gun related death is caused by a hand gun, which hasn't changed technologically since the 1940's in a significant way.

[Pointedstick]

I don't know what kind of guns you own, moda, but a bill has been introduced in your legislature that mandates confiscation.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02 ... democrats/