So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?

So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?

No
Yes
Define 'Mental Disorder'?
Yes
No, unless they specifically define explosives as those systems used in combat applications
Yes, against hi cap ban
No, because the background check already has your information
Yes

Only if a soldier will carry those weapons on the battlefield.

BTW, chemical & biological weapons are illegal, even though Iraq and Syria have/have used them.

Artillery isn't a "carry" item for soldiers.

how about grenades? 

If the grenade is appropriate for self defense, then sure.  I think explosive anti-personnel devices are unsuitable for normal self-defense. 

You would need to be far enough away from the target to keep from injuring/killing yourself or whoever you are protecting.  At that distance, it could be argued you are not in immediate danger from the perp.  This same argument is used when shooting a bad guy at 25 yards.  At that distance, unless you are being shot at, you probably are not in immediate danger.

Although a number of recent court decisions re the Second Amendment have pointed out or emphasized the self-defense aspect as an individual fundamental right, there is no doubt that the Founders also believed keeping and bearing arms was necessary for the possibility of engaging a tyrannical government abrogating the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. I'd venture that such an effort, to be successful, would likely require more than just the extremely close-quarters self-defense weapons, or even the longer range hunting and target shooting rifles. Theft of such items (as hand grenades, etc.) would constitute a greater threat than the theft of firearms, but in my view, if the "justice system" worked properly the 90% of those thieves that are recidivists would never have been let out of prison. Until hand grenades are available to the general public, and criminals are confined to prison, I suppose it's all just theoretical discussion.

One thing to consider when discussing tyrannical situations.  You can use defensive weapons as a starting point to acquire more capable weapons.  No need to stockpile the "big boys" like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, mines, and the like.  With some planning and conventional weapons, the other firepower is within reach.

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.

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

OK, let's talk about background checks: Who needs them and when?

If I buy a new gun from a dealer (an FFL) I get a background check. OK, that's the current process. But, if I buy a gun from my friend, do I need to get a background check, especially since I already own several guns? Who pays for it? How do I access it?

I want to pass my grandfather's shotgun down to my son on his 18th birthday. Do I need to do a background check? Why, or why not?

I want to loan my shotgun to my friend who is considering buying a similar model. Do I need to do a background check on him before I loan it out? 

Under the Manchin-Tooney bill that would have mandated "universal background checks" all of the above would have fallen under the provisions of the law and each interaction would have required a background check. One of the more ridiculous parts of the law would have required that the person I loaned MY gun to do a background check on ME BEFORE returning MY gun.....

In regards to "criminals" especially felons having gun rights, let me ask you this: What other core, fundamental Constitutional right is withheld from someone after they get out of prison for a felony? Freedom of speech, religion, political affiliation, unreasonable search and seizure?

I might be inclined to limit those convicted of VIOLENT felonies from having gun rights, but not all felons. The example I used earlier in the discussion was one related to the endangered species act: You're walking through the forest and pick up a feather on the ground and stick it in your pocket. You are stopped for an unrelated issue by a "game warden" and he finds the feather, which, unfortunately for you, is from a Bald Eagle. You are now charged with a felony and if the charges stick in court, your gun rights evaporate. That's OK with you?

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.
So what felonies would you consider so onerous that one's gun rights should be restricted? Which felonies would not result in restrictions? If you advance an argument that only "some" felons should be disallowed guns, you should be prepared to elaborate and be specific.

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.
Again, if you advance an argument that only "certain" diagnoses should disqualify someone from owning a gun, you should be prepared to state (and justify) specifically which ones. As well as mechanisms to correct false diagnoses or ones they are no longer adversely affected by, such as PTSD. 

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
"universal background checks" or something more targeted? Who and when are background checks required? Be specific please....

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.
OK, I kinda get where you stand on this, but let me ask about your statement about the video and the cop: you say that if you can "pass the test that asks what you should do in these situations" then you're good to go. So, what would you have done in that situation? Remember, the driver was not being interviewed and was told to remain in his seat and quiet. When the cop first approached the driver he (the driver) tried to make the notification but couldn't due to the officers orders and demeanor. So, go on....what would you have done? Remember, if you don't answer correctly, you don't get your CCW...
 
  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.
And how much would this class cost and how long should it be? Who can teach it? One of the reasons LIFE was formed was because when the initial laws on firearms, especially handguns, were promulgated, the only means to received the required training was from the police. They of course didn't offer such a course, and never intended to do so, therefore there was an effective ban on handgun ownership, or there would have been if the laws weren't changed to allow NRA instructors to teach a class that qualified. Currently, only NRA instructors can teach the required class to get a handgun but aren't there other trainers out there that could teach a basic class, such as the First Shots, that should meet the requirements of the law?

  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.
Incorrect. You can legally drive a vehicle after drinking as long as you don't exceed the .08% or aren't objectively impaired to the point you couldn't drive the car safely. That being said, driving a car is not a Constitutional right. What other Constitutional rights are denied to you after you have consumed a few beers with dinner? Should there be a restriction on your free speech after you had even one drink?

Most states that require a background check for firearms purchase will waive the requirement if the buyer holds a CCW permit.

So, if Hawaii were to follow their lead, CCW would solve background check concerns, cost, and wasted time.

Just saw this and thought it was pertinet to the discussion, mainly because it clearly illustrates how things that are "just common sense" can morph into something increasingly onerous to legal gun owners.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/12/new_york_and_am.php

The NY SAFE act requires background checks for ammunition purchases. The cost for each background check is $10.00, which will soon be raised to $20.00. And, I'm sure it'll be raised again, and again.....

Who didn't see that coming, from a corrupt government agency that charges you more than $300 (which is non-refundable if the permit is denied....) to apply for a concealed firearms permit.....

I've wanted to raise the question of the likely roadblocks that will be established in Hawaii for obtaining a CCW license should the Ninth Circuit rule the current restrictions (de facto "shall NOT issue") to be unlawful, but didn't want to get too far ahead of reality. I'd be willing to wager that there are already plans in place to make the process as cumbersome, time-consuming, expensive, and as difficult as possible. Why? Because it's Hawaii, and there seems to be a deeply ingrained resentment towards the idea of ordinary citizens bearing arms for self-defense. They will not go down without a fight. See this article about the attempts to infringe the "right to carry" in Illinois after the clear decisions in McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/cook-county-sheriff-wants-dig-dirt-ccw-applicants/#more-282465 I suspect that some officials somewhere in Hawaii are looking at the attempts to circumvent court-ruled concealed carry by examining the "models" in Illinois, Washington D.C., Maryland, Connecticut, New York City, et. al.

I find it interesting (and frustrating) that people sworn to uphold the Constitution and other laws balk at following these laws that allow citizens to carry concealed (or open) weapons outside their homes. If it's the law, it's the law, right? Not really, if they don't like it they will erect whatever financial and other burdensome barriers they can to deny people their Constitutional rights as determined by the courts. I'd be surprised that IF the Ninth Circuit rules that Hawaii must put a "shall issue" CCW process into place if anyone actually has a license/permit within two years and that it costs less than $200 and a minimum of 20 class hours. Such is likely their interpretation of "shall not be infringed".