Originally Posted by Bugfatty

Nuclear weapons are of an indescriminant mass destruction nature.

And whats wrong with someone owning a Bradley IFV or a tank? There are lots of people in the US who collect working tanks with working guns with proper BATF paperwork.

So you are saying there is some form of control on these items?

Can you find me an instance where a legal privately owned machinegun, grenade launcher, .50 caliber rifle, tank, IFV, fighter jet, was used to kill someone in the US?

Would the "Al Capone" era / St Valentines day Massacre count?
I can see your point but I would argue that the reason these weapons are "rarely" used to kill is that they are restricted if you remove those restrictions their use will increase not decrease because of availability (1920s and 30s USA is a good example of what limited control/unrestricted gun access can do).

Over all I agree with Chief Bones on the this issue, I don't support the banning of weapons I do support their regulation though.

Option 2.

What is not mentioned in the poll, though should be considered, are the associated licensing AND mandatory classes to own the military grade items.

After all, a person spending the time, money, and effort to legally own these types of weapons is very likely not the type of person to use them improperly.

It is the people who have illegal (and often antisocial) plans for weapons of any sort that feed the media-fueled desire to ban weapons. Even if weapons ARE banned, and the good law-abiding people all turn their weapons in, this still leaves all the criminals with them.

Relying on the police or military to prevent crimes is a bad plan, as there simply aren't enough of them, and laws are set up in such a way that they cannot do very much until [c]after[/i] a crime has been committed.

I believe that if you can legally obtain a CCW, then you should. Also, although classes are not mandatory for firearms ownership, they will cut down on accidental shootings and deaths in your home if everyone in the household - adults AND children - take and pass these classes.

Knowledge is power.

A bit disjointed in presentation, but I think my point is clear enough. I will clarify if necessary.

All Registered Got my vote

I was in between on this subject. I ended up opting for the "all guns should be registered" choice. I was going to choose only convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to have 'em, but I really think registering is a good idea.

I don't think there should be a ton of restrictions (other than convicted criminals not being allowed to purchase weapons), but it shouldn't be a problem to register a weapon. I don't give a damn what the government thinks I solely think registering is a safe guard.

If they have records on who owns what guns and X gun is stolen and is used as a murder weapon they will have it on paper. Granted, person X who owns the gun better have made sure their gun is locked up, and reported if missing...or we know who did it, didn't we?

Great poll by the way!



EDITED TO ADD: I echo what Digital Wanderer said about having classes for military grad weapons. I think owning before owning any weapon classes should be mandatory. I think a lot of people are just too stupid to own weapons and are a danger to other people...but as long as they take some "common sense" classes....

United States Constitution


Amendment II


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I voted for "Convicted criminals shouldn't have firearms, but there should be very few other restrictions."



Convicted Felons should not be allow to own firearms. By breaking the law they have given up their rights. That's about it in my humble opinion.




No regulation on Automatic Weapons, Length, Design, Ammunition Capacity, Size, caliber, etc.... (Nukes aren't small arms. So don't try that. I'm talking about man served weapons like Browning M2 Machine guns and .25 Caliber Colt Pocket Pistols. Not the main guns of the USS Wisconsin or a SCUD 2 Missle.)

I agree with ya 5.56, but I think only violent criminals should have their right to bear taken away. Everyone has a right to back up their life with force, whether this right is recognized by the government is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

I voted for "Convicted criminals shouldn't have firearms, but there should be very few other restrictions."



Convicted Felons should not be allow to own firearms. By breaking the law they have given up their rights. That's about it in my humble opinion.




No regulation on Automatic Weapons, Length, Design, Ammunition Capacity, Size, caliber, etc.... (Nukes aren't small arms. So don't try that. I'm talking about man served weapons like Browning M2 Machine guns and .25 Caliber Colt Pocket Pistols. Not the main guns of the USS Wisconsin or a SCUD 2 Missle.)

Total agreement

I like how states like Texas and Utah handle firearms. They enforce existing laws. A Texan friend of mine put it this way: If you have a pulse and a clean record, they will dang near make you buy a gun"

I think there is a town in Utah that actually requires every home owner to have at least one gun.

Right, other than criminals I think there should be very few restrictions.