Here's that video of the Ohio LEO that at first tells the concealed carrier to not talk and then, when the officer finally gets to talking to him, the gun owner tries a couple of times to inform the officer he was carrying before the officer goes off the deep end....this is but one example of such behavior and is why some oppose notification laws....



In early 2012 that officer was fired after a "pattern" of abuse and misconduct were discovered on video of other traffic stops. In an unfortunate turn of events, an arbitration hearing apparently said the cop could return to work if he was medically cleared to do so. 

The cop is a loose cannon. Not sure what medically cleared really is but IMO he shouldn't be a LEO.

He should be shoveling elephant poo at the local zoo.

Prohibiting Full auto  - Agree.  Full auto has no real life usage except war.  Only makes accuracy plummet.  Maybe heavily regulate this.
There is no real reason for owning a 600HP automobile except to race either, but they're not illegal. And, FYI, full auto is legal on the Federal level, just not our state. In states that allow full auto ownership, none are used in crimes....
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree.  Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Why? The benefits, even if they don't make the firearm totally silent, it does reduce the decibel levels dramatically which could help with hearing loss. In some European countries, they are required for hunting so as not to disturb the other wildlife.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree.  I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree.  Criminals never learn.  Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Do you agree with the Lautenberg Amendment that makes those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ineligible to own firearms? Should non-violent felons be allowed to own firearms?
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Which ones?
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit.  Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
What other core Constitutional rights do you advocate a permitting process for?
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree.  Current law for this is satisfactory.  Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Should that include reactive targets like Tannerite?
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree.  Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Uhhh, no. You wake up in the middle of the night to noise in your house and grab your self-defense handgun. You are quickly confronted by three home invaders. I don't know about you, but I want maximum capacity in the magazine I have in that gun because the likelihood of me (or you) being able to grab additional magazines is pretty low....
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed.  As an American right, it shouldnt require registration.  I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho.  It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that.  Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner.  I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
So what are the penalties for not reporting it and what time frame must you report it missing? As for the liability issue, why should the owners be responsible if a criminal breaks into their house and steals their gun and then uses it criminally? Does the car owner who has his car stolen get charged with a crime if he didn't have his vehicle in a secure and locked garage when it was stolen?
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
What would that training consist of? Who gets to decide? Does the legal training have to be by a lawyer? How long does the training have to be?
  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof.  It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
So you should have to show proficiency with any firearm you may want to carry? What if the gun you "tested with" breaks and you want to carry another one but haven't "tested out" on it yet? Can you do an "emergency" qualification so you don't have to be unarmed while you wait to schedule your proficiency test?
  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree.  Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
So I can have a few beers and still be legal to drive my car, which kills many more people each year than guns, but I cannot carry my firearm?
Allow Open Carry - Disagree.  Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs.  Just causes unwanted public attention.  I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID.  I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me.  Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Speaking your mind on your proverbial soapbox on the corner of the street or in a park often draws unwanted public attention, should that be illegal? Loud preaching on a sidewalk is also bound to garner unwanted public attention, should that also be illegal? As for the felon, you're comfortable with him carrying concealed? You may not "like" open carry, or agree with it, but it is, especially where no permit is required, one of the purest means by which to express your Second Amendment rights.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree.  Just because of the nature of their job.
Why? As any LEO will tell you, they automatically assume that anyone they stop is carrying. Try and find that video of the Ohio guy who was berated and threatened to be shot by the cop arresting him because he didn't tell the cop he was carrying "quick" enough. And that is the problem. If there is a mandatory disclosure to law enforcement, there will always be the ability of a "bad apple" making a case out of you not telling him "soon enough." And, is a disclosure mandatory on an non-consensual stop, or is it mandated for a consensual stop, meaning that anytime an LEO said anything to you, including "good morning" as you passed on the street, you'd be mandated to disclose you were carrying a firearm....

I just think current laws on full auto and suppressors are fine.  Using full auto in a self defense situation could harm innocent bystanders very easily
Domestic violence just bc the prior nature of people living in such close quarters together can get ugly fast.  Violent crimes just because of their way of thinking.  Maybe 3 convictions or more then???
Mental disorders just because their thought process.  Guess it really depends on the mental disorder like depression.
Maybe no permit to purchase necessary if it all can be done at a gun shop.
I also think current explosive laws are satisfactory.  What exactly are you gonna use them for anyway?
Limiting Magazine capacity i dont support.  Like i said... you could easily get around this by carrying more magazines so it negates this law.  Maybe i worded it wrong but i support hi-cap mags
I suppose there is really no sense in registration but requiring to report stolen firearms i support.  Keeping them out of reach of children is a must.  Sorry i dont talk about firearm politics much.
Before you conceal carry, i think you should be trained in the use of force and other similar responsibility.  Having a permit just bc it shows you took that training class.  Being intoxicated and driving is dangerous so why should i allowed to be intoxicated and carry?  People in general do a lot of dumb things when they are intoxicated.
Open carry... still against just because it causes alarm to the general public.  Sorry
Stopped by LEOs... anytime you are being lawfully detained.  Casual encounters no need.

I dunno do i sound anti-gun?  sorry.  i might be in limbo but more pro-gun... i just think there should be at least some limitations

I just think current laws on full auto and suppressors are fine.  Using full auto in a self defense situation could harm innocent bystanders very easily
Who said anything about self defense? You stated an opinion that full auto guns should be illegal, as should suppressors, and you base that on self defense "needs." But what if I want one because it's cool, or because it was a memento form my father who brought back a war trophy from overseas? And, in the balance to fight tyranny, wouldn't a full auto, or select fire firearm be just the ticket to counter those armed by said tyrannical government? And what about suppressors? Why should they be illegal?
Domestic violence just bc the prior nature of people living in such close quarters together can get ugly fast. So, the guy who tossed his keys at her request (during a domestic argument) and when she misses them and they hit her in the chest, should be denied a basic Constitutional right (true story)? Why should you loose a core, fundamental right (if it involves firearms) over a misdemeanor, when you don't loose your First or Fourth Amendment rights even after a felony conviction?
Violent crimes just because of their way of thinking.  Maybe 3 convictions or more then??? Violent felons should be in jail
Mental disorders just because their thought process.  Guess it really depends on the mental disorder like depression. So please clarify: Which "mental disorders" should disallow you to exercise your fundamental Constitutional right? Depression? Bed wetting? Tourette's syndrome? Be specific because that is what you are asking "someone" else to do. Promulgate rules that would deprive certain individuals from exercising their rights. And, I know of two cases, where here in Hawaii individuals were denied a permit based on "mental disorders: one was a person with situational depression after the death of a loved one and the other a history of bedwetting as a child. Were those OK with you?
Maybe no permit to purchase necessary if it all can be done at a gun shop.
I also think current explosive laws are satisfactory.  What exactly are you gonna use them for anyway? I asked you about reactive targets like Tannerite on my last post. Did you look it up? That's what I want it for and there are some moves by regulatory agencies to reclassify it as an explosive, which would mean it wouldn't be available to use for us "regular" citizens. And therein lays the problem, what exactly is classified as an explosive. Today it's dynamite and C4, tomorrow Tannerite, and the day after gun powder......
Here's a link to Tannerite: http://www.tannerite.com/
Limiting Magazine capacity i dont support.  Like i said... you could easily get around this by carrying more magazines so it negates this law.  Maybe i worded it wrong but i support hi-cap mags. No, you made yourself sound like an apologist saying you can easily get around this law by carrying more magazines. As someone who carries anytime I am legally can, I think the attitude that you can simply carry a couple extra magazines, especially in hot climates, is the "easy" way to get around the law, is not only misguided, but demonstrates your lack of familiarity with actually carrying a firearm.
I suppose there is really no sense in registration but requiring to report stolen firearms i support.  Keeping them out of reach of children is a must. No one wants to see a child get hurt with a firearm, which is what I think you are trying to say. But as I tried to explain in my previous post with the analogy to the stolen car, why is the victim suddenly the bad guy. I support keeping your firearms secure to prevent them being used by kids, but if I, as someone who doesn't have kids decides to keep my firearm in my bedside drawer and someone breaks in and steals it. And then uses it it in a crime or accidentally injures themselves, why should a gun owner be any more responsible (or criminally liable) than the guy who locks up his car in the drive way and then has it stolen?
Sorry i dont talk about firearm politics much.
Before you conceal carry, i think you should be trained in the use of force and other similar responsibility.  Having a permit just bc it shows you took that training class. You already said that but didn't answer my question: Who gets to decide the level of training? Do you have to undergo periodic retraining? Do you have to "test out" on every gun you may want to carry? How long should the class be? And, what other core, fundamental Constitutional right should you have to undergo training on before you exercise it? Voting? Writing an editorial or a blog?
Being intoxicated and driving is dangerous so why should i allowed to be intoxicated and carry?  People in general do a lot of dumb things when they are intoxicated. No one, certainly not me, is going to argue that drinking and driving isn't dangerous. But, do you think it should be illegal to drive after you have had a glass of wine or a beer with your meal? If not, why would you think it proper to make carrying your gun (and exercising a fundamental right) illegal after having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner?
Open carry... still against just because it causes alarm to the general public.  Sorry. Don't be sorry, defend your position with logic and rational thought. I provided you a number of examples where exercising your rights may cause alarm to the general public but I assume you don't have a problem with any of those. Why the different position on causing public alarm with one lawful activity but not another?  
Stopped by LEOs... anytime you are being lawfully detained.  Casual encounters no need. I'm walking down the street, doing nothing illegal, and a LEO stops me with a "Hey, how are you doing" and starts up a conversation. Is that an instance one that is "casual" and I need not disclose I have a firearm? What if he then asks me for my ID. Is it not a "not so casual encounter? The point is that the lines between what is a "casual" encounter (legally referred to as a consensual encounter) and a non-consensual encounter may be a bit blurred and may not be entirely obvious at the time of the stop. And just for the record, I tend to let LEO know when I'm carrying. 

I dunno do i sound anti-gun?  sorry.  i might be in limbo but more pro-gun... i just think there should be at least some limitations

Once again, I'm not trying to beat up on you, but I do note that you are a bit of a newbie (at least here) and are espousing a lot of positions that may not be considered "pro-gun" and that seem to be based on a lot of anti-gun type talking points. Such as your full auto and suppressor stance. So, what I would suggest you do, and you can tell me to take a hike if you are so inclined, is to do a bit of research. It's fine if you want to take a particular stand on a gun issue, just make sure you can defend that position with credible facts rather than just saying "that's what I think." One of the biggest complaints from the pro-gun side of the argument is that the "antis" tend to use emotion and the all to frequent and baseless "common sense" meme. Oh, and the "if it saves one child" plea. That's why I ask you to expand and explain your position, like the mental health issue. It's all too easy to say that those with mental illnesses should have guns, but that is a very broad class of people so it must be narrowed down and fully explained as to what you mean. Because that's what you'd have to do if you were writing the laws, spell out completely and succinctly who gets guns and who doesn't, and the criteria to apply to make those decisions.

So again, do yourself a favor, research your position before making such bold and sweeping statements. It could be that you are basing your decisions of misinformation or an incomplete understanding of the many complicated issues surrounding "gun control."

And, welcome to the board and to the shooting community. Aloha.

*Prohibiting Full auto -

There is no need to prohibit full auto firearms. The current law imposes a $200 tax stamp and approximately 1 year wait to acquire full auto firearms.
Study after study prove that "full auto gun violence" is non existent. With those numbers, I'd want everybody to own full auto firearms.

*Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers -

I would immediately repeal any laws that restrict the use of suppressors in any way.
The use of a sound suppressor makes everyone's life better.
The shooter does not suffer hearing loss and everyone around you is happier too.
Suppressors reduce noise pollution.
There is no practical use of sound suppressors for criminals.
There is absolutely no need to restrict them at all.

*Assault Weapons Ban -

This needs to be abolished as well.
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"
By definition, any item you use to "assault" someone is an "assault weapon"
If you allow stupidity like this to become a law, you've opened the door for anything to be added to the list.
Automobiles kill more innocent people every year than all firearms combined.
D they make the list?

*Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms -

Domestic violence laws are complete BULLSHIT.
All some lying tramp has to do is claim that a man hit her. He didn't even have to be in the same city when her allegation happens and LEO's will immediately arrest him and confiscate any firearms he owns.
Most Felonies are bullshit too.
If some 18 year old kid steals $350 worth of food to feed his family and gets arrested, he becomes a convicted felon.
If some guy makes a mistake doing his taxes, he can be charged and convicted with tax evasion ( a felony )
If a man borrows his girlfriends car and she decides to get back at him for cheating on her, she calls the police and reports the car stolen, that man can be convicted of felony car theft.
The list goes on and on.
Bottom line is the current laws are idiotic when it comes to prohibiting "felons" from owning firearms.

*Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders -

This I kind of agree with.
The problem here is who gets to decide which "mental disorder" fits in the criteria and how many "newly diagnosed disorders" will be implemented down the road.
Just so you know, overeating, watching pornography, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, excessive gambling, excessive sex are considered mental disorders in some circles.

*Background Checks - NICS checks are sufficient

*Permit to Purchase - NOPE

*Prohibiting Explosives. - Already regulated.

*Limiting Magazine Capacity -  This is the dumbest thing ever devised by an idiotic law maker. Repeal immediately.

*Registration of Firearms - Absolutely not. Open your eyes. The only purpose for registration is confiscation.

*Allow Concealed Carry- Yes.

*Allow Open Carry - Yes.

Again, countless studies show that the states that allow carrying of firearms are plagued by less violence than the states that flat out prohibit it.

*Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped -

I don't think you should have to.
Police officers are people too. Complete with opinions and biases. If you're required to notify police when you are stopped, you can turn a simple traffic stop into one mans stand against anything he opposes.

HiCarry and Kingkeoni: Thank you for taking the time to present a rational analysis and using critical thinking skills to respond to someone who presents positions on "common sense gun safety" that are totally lacking in logical justification. At least, the person is unwilling to provide much logical support for their positions... almost like a "troll". I'll be curious to see if this person actually responds to the detailed questions raised about their positions taken, or if we get just another, "well, that's what I think" response.

When Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, Biden, Obama, et. al. state that they "support the Second Amendment" (I really hate their new "talking points") and that they "only want common sense gun safety legislation" I see that as obvious code for "For all you low information voters out there who are too f***ing stupid or disinterested to bother to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does and means... here is our latest effort toward our eventual goal of total civilian disarmament." When I talk to most people about any aspect of these "common sense gun safety laws" that are proposed, 1. they don't have a clue about what is really in the legislation, and 2. they don't really care, because "people don't need those kinds of guns/"clips" anyway". So it's not really a big surprise that there is a certain, hopefully severely minority group within the firearm ownership community that has at least unthinkingly and uncritically tasted the kool-aid. Hopefully they can be inspired to become more educated on the issues at hand.

HiCarry and Kingkeoni: Thank you for taking the time to present a rational analysis and using critical thinking skills to respond to someone who presents positions on "common sense gun safety" that are totally lacking in logical justification. At least, the person is unwilling to provide much logical support for their positions... almost like a "troll". I'll be curious to see if this person actually responds to the detailed questions raised about their positions taken, or if we get just another, "well, that's what I think" response.

When Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, Biden, Obama, et. al. state that they "support the Second Amendment" (I really hate their new "talking points") and that they "only want common sense gun safety legislation" I see that as obvious code for "For all you low information voters out there who are too f***ing stupid or disinterested to bother to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does and means... here is our latest effort toward our eventual goal of total civilian disarmament." When I talk to most people about any aspect of these "common sense gun safety laws" that are proposed, 1. they don't have a clue about what is really in the legislation, and 2. they don't really care, because "people don't need those kinds of guns/"clips" anyway". So it's not really a big surprise that there is a certain, hopefully severely minority group within the firearm ownership community that has at least unthinkingly and uncritically tasted the kool-aid. Hopefully they can be inspired to become more educated on the issues at hand.

just got this email from councilman stanley chang

Councilmember Chang Urges Federal Action to Reduce Gun Crime

President Obama signing the Now is the Time plan to reduce gun violence. Behind him are children who wrote letters to the White House with concerns about gun violence (image: ABC News)
Last month, Councilmember Chang introduced Resolution 13-280 urging the U.S. Congress to reduce gun related injuries and deaths by enacting legislation to help prevent gun violence from occurring.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), gun violence causes approximately 100,000 injuries and 30,000 deaths across our nation each year and in Hawaii 485 people died between 1999 and 2010 from guns. Each life is precious and losing one innocent life to gun violence is one too many.

Recent mass shooting incidents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.; a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado; and a school in Sparks, Nevada among many other tragic shootings illustrate the pressing need for stronger national laws to prevent gun violence.

"Hawaii is not immune to mass shooting incidents," said Councilmember Chang. "The Xerox shooting in the 1990s led to many changes in Hawaii state law to protect our islands from future mass shooting incidents, but that’s not the case in the rest of the country. I am pro-gun safety and anti-gun crime. We need stronger national laws to protect children and families from gun crime."

Specifically, Resolution 13-280 urges the U.S. Congress to enact legislation necessary to implement President Obama's "Now is the Time" plan to reduce gun violence.

President Obama’s plan calls for closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands, banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. To learn more about President Obama's plan to prevent gun violence, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence.

President Obama’s plan calls for closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands, banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. To learn more about President Obama's plan to prevent gun violence, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence.

When i clicked on that link, here is what I saw: "Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found." Why didn't that surprise me? Here is the working link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

It would take days to go line by line through that pile of crap and counter-argue each lie, so I will just target one of the favorite talking points: "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."

Very curious though, nowhere in the proposals did I see the legislation that would save far more children's lives than more "common sense gun safety legislation", to wit 1. lower the speed limit for all vehicles to 20 MPH, which would help, but if you REALLY CARE about even one life... 2. better yet, make motor vehicles illegal (motor vehicle accidents #1 cause of death), 3. ban all household herbicides, pesticides, cleaning products, bleach, etc. or any other substance that poisons children, 4. ban bathtubs and swimming pools (#2 cause of death), 5. require that all buildings, clothing, furniture, etc. be fully fireproof (#3 cause of death), 6. pass legislation making it impossible for children to suffocate (#4 cause of death), and finally, pass legislation making it illegal to commit homicide with a firearm on a child (somehow I think that might already exist). [By the way, I did NOT use the Brady Campaign, et. al. nomenclature that all people 25 and under, or 21 and under are "children"... i used a dictionary: see "infant, child, adolescent, adult".]

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

So much for "doing something" to save just one life. [Expletive deleted... but you can probably guess...]

And what if that one child that is saved is by a parent or responsible adult (or maybe the kid themselves, i.e. the 15 year old that used his dad's AR to shoot a home invader thereby protecting himself and his 12 year old sister) who uses a gun to do so?

Funny how that argument never gains much traction with the "common sense" gun law, if it saves one life, crowd.....

And I'm willing to give "Water" the benefit of the doubt...for now. Mainly because I have seen far too many newbies who have bought the load of BS that the anti's push. So, if he's really just a new guy trying to get a handle on this, he just needs to do a little self-reflection about why he believes what he does and I am more than willing to cut him that slack....I think we all need to be aware that these issues are complicated, and that the legal basis for many of our assertions may not be well understood (for example the issue of "collective rights versus individual rights) by non-lawyers and those not exposed to the history and nuances of the Second Amendment. We should make sure we don't alienate the newbies just because they may not have all the facts at hand and we should take time to encourage them to research the basis for their views so we continue to educate more and more people to see the fallacy of gun control laws and the purposeful lies and misinformation used by the anti's.

Another story where disclosing to police that you had a firearm (even though it sounds like the citizen was under no legal obligation to do so....) caused more problems for the legal gun owner.....

http://www.guns.com/2013/12/21/cleveland-settles-pays-gun-owner-weapon-seizure/

Derrick Washington is a law-abiding gun owner with a valid concealed-carry permit....Last February, Washington called local police to report a shooting near his home in Cleveland, Ohio. When police arrived on the scene, they began questioning Washington about the incident.

Although he didn't tell them initially, probably because it wasn’t germane to the investigation, Washington later admitted that he was a licensed gun owner and that he had a firearm stored in his parked car. The firearm was not linked to the shooting in any way.

According to police reports, officers claim that Washington said he had two vodka drinks that night– a claim that Washington vehemently denies.

Since Washington had been allegedly drinking and because he waited to tell the officers that he was a law-abiding gun owner with a carry permit, the officers put him in cuffs, confiscated his .38-caliber Taurus from inside his vehicle and charged him with using weapons while intoxicated and illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

Washington would spend three days in jail before an assistant city prosecutor decided to drop the charges because there “was not enough evidence,” as the The Plain Dealer reported.

As for Washington’s firearm, well, that was not returned because of a law that permits police to hold weapons until a “court of competent jurisdiction” rules that one can have them back.

Agree with much of the good discussion here.

Specifically with regard to "full auto", I think the challenge is you can very quickly be talking about some serious firepower. Likewise with statements on explosives and "we should be able to buy whatever the military owns". I realize most people are referring to full auto rifles, etc. which are frankly usually just a way to miss expensively, but once you allow full auto where do you end? Why not explosive ammo or incendiaries?

I honestly feel like there are things that should be controlled. Should private citizens be allowed to own auto cannons, guided missiles, anti aircraft guns,etc? I'd say probably not. Where exactly is the line? Does our right to bear incendiary ammo trump the common desire to prevent wildfires? I'm not sure but I believe it's an intersection between the right to bear arms and the right for others to be safe from disproportionately powerful weapons. Certainly most would agree citizens should not possess WMDs, and once we agree in principal that some limits are reasonable it's all about finding a fair and reasonable way to draw that distinction.

Granted I realize many of these can be built fairly easy given COTS tech - cheap INS and compact electronics would make a DIY cruise missile easy - does that mean anyone should be allowed to possess these openly?  I'd genuinely be interested to hear a rational argument for why they should.

Agree with much of the good discussion here.

Specifically with regard to "full auto", I think the challenge is you can very quickly be talking about some serious firepower. Likewise with statements on explosives and "we should be able to buy whatever the military owns". I realize most people are referring to full auto rifles, etc. which are frankly usually just a way to miss expensively, but once you allow full auto where do you end? Why not explosive ammo or incendiaries?

I honestly feel like there are things that should be controlled. Should private citizens be allowed to own auto cannons, guided missiles, anti aircraft guns,etc? I'd say probably not. Where exactly is the line? Does our right to bear incendiary ammo trump the common desire to prevent wildfires? I'm not sure but I believe it's an intersection between the right to bear arms and the right for others to be safe from disproportionately powerful weapons. Certainly most would agree citizens should not possess WMDs, and once we agree in principal that some limits are reasonable it's all about finding a fair and reasonable way to draw that distinction.

Granted I realize many of these can be built fairly easy given COTS tech - cheap INS and compact electronics would make a DIY cruise missile easy - does that mean anyone should be allowed to possess these openly?  I'd genuinely be interested to hear a rational argument for why they should.

Private civilians have the right to possess the same weapons as modern soldiers. 

We are usually defending against the same criminals as law enforcement, so why can't we be allowed the same weaponry?

Yea sorry this is my first time really discussing things like this.  I know almost nobody that owns firearms, besides my self, so i never really had discussion.  I just went through the process accepting it.  Tho it would be nice to have no regulations, i figured some are necessary.

I do think criminal background checks are necessary tho.  Tho the system may be flawed, im sure in court you need beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual crime existed.  Stealing, assault, property damage is all crime... whether intent can be proved is the challenge, which is probably more harder for the prosecutor to prove.  Criminals should not be allowed to own a gun.. Should be reserved for the law abiding citizen.  Certain felonies are pretty serious crimes but tax invasion... yea not so serious to take your 2A away from you

Yea sorry this is my first time really discussing things like this.  I know almost nobody that owns firearms, besides my self, so i never really had discussion.  I just went through the process accepting it.  Tho it would be nice to have no regulations, i figured some are necessary.

I do think criminal background checks are necessary tho.  Tho the system may be flawed, im sure in court you need beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual crime existed.  Stealing, assault, property damage is all crime... whether intent can be proved is the challenge, which is probably more harder for the prosecutor to prove.  Criminals should not be allowed to own a gun.. Should be reserved for the law abiding citizen.  Certain felonies are pretty serious crimes but tax invasion... yea not so serious to take your 2A away from you

The laws against felons owning guns only apply to a portion of criminals.  NOT ALL CRIMINALS ARE CONVICTED.  Criminals break laws.  Convicted criminals get caught and judged.  Additionally, criminals who are okay breaking laws are potentially okay with breaking gun laws, too.  That includes finding ways around background checks.

So, while the convicted criminals can be excluded from going to a shop and legally buying guns, it's merely an impediment, not an impenetrable barrier. 

The Feds are being very complacent in arresting and convicting people who commit gun crimes exclusively.  For instance, lots of people unable to legally buy a gun attempt to every year.  What happens when the person is denied the ability to purchase a gun?  He acts like he didn't know what he was doing is against the law, then walks away.  He should have been arrested and tried for attempting to commit a felony -- acquiring a gun illegally.  Doesn't happen.

Stiffer penalties and actual enforcement would make a big difference.  Instead, the laws are being tightened against law biding owners to reduce legally owned firearms.

.

Private civilians have the right to possess the same weapons as modern soldiers. 

We are usually defending against the same criminals as law enforcement, so why can't we be allowed the same weaponry?

So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?

I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Disagree. Slippery slope, give em an inch, they take a mile.

I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Agree, but the crimes need to be specific when pertaining what they did and how the crime prohibits them from having a gun.

I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Agree. The mental disorder needs to be diagnosed correctly and the law needs to be refined and specific.

I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
Agree. I don't think just anyone should be able to own a gun, like the examples of felons and people with mental disorders.

I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Disagree. I think the same steps and even more should be taken to acquiring explosives that there are to getting a gun, extensive background checks and mental health checks should be done in this case.

I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Agree. Magazine cap laws are hogwash.

I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
This practice needs to be stopped immediately.

I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
Agree. But what requirements? I don't think Id be against a written test, like taking one to get your drivers permit. You should know what youre doing with a concealed weapon and how to handle certain situations, like the above video when encountering a cop, if you can pass the test that asks you what you should do in these situations then you shouldn't have a problem in day to day life carrying a concealed weapon.
 
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
Agree. This could go hand in hand with the written test after the class or course is complete, but it cant be too bureaucratic to where its ridiculously expensive to take this class and should be easily available to the public to take.

  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Agree. The permit should be given after completing the course and test for CC, though I disagree it should be weapon specific.

  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
Agree. Driving a car is like handling a weapon and there are zero tolerance views on this so why not with guns. Look at the Chris Deedy case, I don't care if youre a cop or federal agent or anything like that, if you are consuming alcohol, even just one, you have no business carrying a weapon, it can cloud your judgment and poor decisions can be made. You want to be a gun owner, be responsible and choose either to carry a weapon, or drink, you cant have both.

So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?

The US military no longer has chemical weapons as generally conceived, but YOU can have them, as that is exactly what pepper sprays and similar are.  You need to brush up on standard military arms as well,  Nukes are not employed by individual soldiers or Marines.  Nor is artillery. 

As far as your example of artillery and nukes, did you forget to leave out "bazookas"?  That is in the Handgun Control Inc. talking points pamphlet as well, I believe.