02-02-2013, 04:31 PM
LR1955 Wrote:Bjorn:
OK -- I was not trying to compare the two individuals as individuals. I was making a statement about limits on what a citizen should be allowed to buy and used the nut job as an example of a bad citizen who probably didn't need access to automatic weapons or explosive devices.
Now that is out of the way -- and simply out of curiosity -- without being too direct, too confrontational, too leftist, too radical right, too conspiratorial, etc, etc.
You said that the average citizen should be able to have the 'firearms' commonly available to the military. 'Firearms' is specific. 'Commonly' and 'military' are too vague.
So, maybe we can list the firearms common to the military and you can tell us which ones should be allowed for the public given current laws,and which shouldn't be allowed. I did not include the firearms that are already legal without a Class III such as the M-9, M-24, M-40, M-110, Barrett.
M-4 W/ 3 round burst.
M-4 with automatic capability.
M-240 with variants.
SAW with variants.
All of the above are allowed for the public given a Class III. None without a Class III. So, which of these should be allowed given a simple police check? Or, should the licensing requirements for automatic weapons be dropped and they be allowed for open sale to the public?
LR1955
How about people are treated like they are innocent until proven guilty. I have no problems with people owning any firearm that the military's has. Look at the crimes committed with people who own legal full auto firearms. They are the most well behaved firearm owners in the world. The difference is that if you commit a crime with a full auto firearm you get 10 years in prison "period". What ever crime you committed with the firearm is added on to that plus a $250,000 dollar fine. If the government decided certain firearms required a certain amount of training and requirements like a cdl or pilot licenses there would be no problem. But this isn't about safety, it is about division of power and control . No real conspiracy just fact. If safety was the governments main concern they would try to ban hand guns first because hand guns killed 6,009 people in 2010, next would be knives 1,704 murdered, back yard swimming pools 1000 drownings, shotguns,373 murdered, then rifles 358. This would be the logical progression of safety issues and gun bans if safety was the main objective. If the government said we expect the public to at least match the back ground checks and training of law enforcement be fore they can own the same type of firearms as law enforcement personnel then there wouldn't be an argument. If they put very strict punishments on any crimes committed with these firearms there wouldn't be an argument. But has any government representative ever offered these type of policy's? No because they don't care about safety like gun free zones which they consider smart policy yet these same government representatives surround themselves and their family's with armed guards. I don't really see any conspiracy's in the double standards and flat out lying and propaganda in the destruction of our god given rights, and abuse of power, just tyranny.