Silk Road forums

Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: j3an on October 30, 2012, 07:49 pm

Title: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: j3an on October 30, 2012, 07:49 pm
Been meaning to get involved in this fantastic forum for a while - I'm so happy there are so many others who are also fans of Von Mises, and this only makes TSR experience sweeter for me. I use Liberte, and it crashes constantly so want to shoot this out quick, so my dilemma:

I think that the vast majority, if not all, true libertarians would agree that a man has the right to bear arms to protect his family i.e. a gun. It is a tragedy to me that that in the UK, you are unable to keep a gun in your home to protect yourself from intruders. The situation has gotten slightly better, with the government broadening its definition of 'reasonable force', but firearms apart from game/clay pigeon shotguns are still illegal.

My question: should there be any limit to what arms you can carry in your home? Should it stop with a handgun, shotgun, AK47, tank, or even nuclear bomb? In your opinion is there a boundary, and why?

As a context, I am a fairly right wing Libertarian - I believe that that the state should provide medicare, education, or interfere with the markets. However at a minimum, I think the state should be responsible only for the army, the police and courts of law. Judging by the number of crypto-anarchists in this subforum, I believe I am in the minority, but I am interested in hearing from those who believe the state should not provide even the aforementioned things, and will hopefully have time to dive into a few books explaining why the state should not even provide this.

I'd love to hear from anybody to help me with this question, from moderate libertarians to full blown anarchists.
     

Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: farmer1 on October 30, 2012, 08:20 pm
You should be able to own any type of weapon. There should not be a 'boundary' because the State will simply use it against you (to maintain control over you).
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Barbijuana on October 30, 2012, 09:07 pm
I have always held the notion that if you pass legislation to deny any type of firearms to civilians then only those with already nefarious intent would be armed.
 
 People aimed at doing harm with weapons will get the weapons regardless of law. By creating difficulty to obtain such arms, it creates a market of risk and reward for those who are willing to supply.
 
The people are the watchdogs of Government and the gun is to tooth and claw of Liberty. I feel much safer knowing that every dumb-fuck American redneck has assault rifles and handguns. If the U.S. ever gets invaded; every city and home an enemy, foreign OR domestic, comes across would be a force to be reckoned with.
 
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

-Thomas Jefferson

 
 
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: BigScrote on October 30, 2012, 10:21 pm
I have always held the notion that if you pass legislation to deny any type of firearms to civilians then only those with already nefarious intent would be armed.
 
 People aimed at doing harm with weapons will get the weapons regardless of law. By creating difficulty to obtain such arms, it creates a market of risk and reward for those who are willing to supply.
 
The people are the watchdogs of Government and the gun is to tooth and claw of Liberty. I feel much safer knowing that every dumb-fuck American redneck has assault rifles and handguns. If the U.S. ever gets invaded; every city and home an enemy, foreign OR domestic, comes across would be a force to be reckoned with.
 
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

-Thomas Jefferson

You make some interesting points. Being from Canada, I find the mentality and overall schema of the 'average' Canadian to be grreatly different than our American neighbours, depsite our vast similiarties. I understand that assuming that just because the current government isn't showing signs of active tyranny (read: The State enforcing control of the people; not just in the metaphorical sense. Let's not get semantic. I'm talking fascism in action, not subersion of the will of the people), that doesn't mean we don't need to be prepared. Or in the event of an invasion. But I feel your argument that people intent of doing harm will get guns regardless is a bit specious. It's a slight logical fallacy, in that the possession of guns isn't't what is preventing the aforementioned from happening (yet, I know...). At least not causationally. I completely agree that the people are the watchdog of the government. But it makes me sad that this translates into base-level, brute-force type regulation over logical thinking and reasoning. I love how you call out the real purpose behind the right to bear arms; I'm so fucking sick of the argument that it prevents crime or "because it's the 2nd amendment so let me exercise my entitlement". Now, I'm off to get a Tim Horton's and miss hockey.

Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Barbijuana on October 31, 2012, 12:26 am
I have always held the notion that if you pass legislation to deny any type of firearms to civilians then only those with already nefarious intent would be armed.
 
 People aimed at doing harm with weapons will get the weapons regardless of law. By creating difficulty to obtain such arms, it creates a market of risk and reward for those who are willing to supply.
 
The people are the watchdogs of Government and the gun is to tooth and claw of Liberty. I feel much safer knowing that every dumb-fuck American redneck has assault rifles and handguns. If the U.S. ever gets invaded; every city and home an enemy, foreign OR domestic, comes across would be a force to be reckoned with.
 
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

-Thomas Jefferson

You make some interesting points. Being from Canada, I find the mentality and overall schema of the 'average' Canadian to be grreatly different than our American neighbours, depsite our vast similiarties. I understand that assuming that just because the current government isn't showing signs of active tyranny (read: The State enforcing control of the people; not just in the metaphorical sense. Let's not get semantic. I'm talking fascism in action, not subersion of the will of the people), that doesn't mean we don't need to be prepared. Or in the event of an invasion. But I feel your argument that people intent of doing harm will get guns regardless is a bit specious. It's a slight logical fallacy, in that the possession of guns isn't't what is preventing the aforementioned from happening (yet, I know...). At least not causationally. I completely agree that the people are the watchdog of the government. But it makes me sad that this translates into base-level, brute-force type regulation over logical thinking and reasoning. I love how you call out the real purpose behind the right to bear arms; I'm so fucking sick of the argument that it prevents crime or "because it's the 2nd amendment so let me exercise my entitlement". Now, I'm off to get a Tim Horton's and miss hockey.

Hello Northern Neighbor!

Appreciate your response and I would just like to take this chance to point out the current state of our American Executive administration in the terms of enforcing control. President Obama, although publicly scrutinizing its content, signed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 31st. The NDAA is not a new legislation, but this year it contains two VERY concerning amendments to its original doctrine. It now allows the U.S. Government to treat citizens as potential terrorist suspects and allows anyone to be detained by military or police indefinitely without trial, jury, or due process of law.

Currently Pres. Obama has a team of lawyers who are continuing to lobby at keeping this provision within the NDAA as it is being overlooked by the Judicial system. At the same time, they are using the Espionage Act of 1913 to prosecute journalist whistle-blowers who report the truth to the American people about the activities of the Government we elect and pay. Google Amber Lyons (Hot)

Here is a list of the Executive Orders which the current administration has passed. These are in the books and considered LAW:

10990 Allows the government to take control of all modes of transportation and control highways and seaports.
10995 Allows the government to seize control of communications and the media.
10997 Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals
10998 Allows the government to take over all food sources
10999 Provides for the seizure of ALL means of transportation, including PERSONAL cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and TOTAL CONTROL over all highways, seaports, and waterways
11000 Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
11001 Allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
11002 Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons
11003 Allows the government to take control of all airports and aircraft including commercial aircraft.
11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned and establish new locations for populations.
11005 Allows the government to take control of railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
11051 allows specified the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic and financial crisis
11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in the Executive order to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions and to advise and assist the President.
12148 Defines Federal Emergency Management National Security emergencies such as international disaster, social unrest, insurrection, national financial crisis[/color][/font][/size][/left]



Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Barbijuana on October 31, 2012, 12:37 am
Forgot to mention the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act which allows the Government to arrest for up to one year (Or detain indefinitely ala NDAA) anyone that disrupts Government business at the White House, Congress, or any temporary hub where Secret Service is at.

No protesting.

I would advise everyone to get a gun. I'm not saying use it. I am just saying get one handy.

The Government is full of eat, sleep, shit n fuck monkey just like the rest of us. Why on Earth do they have the authority to do things like this?
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: BigScrote on October 31, 2012, 12:42 am
Pardon my ignorance,  but how exactly do these things get enacted? Is it through the executive power of the president alone? I also admit I don't have a clue about any of this in Canada; I don't know what our laws are. I do know our Prime Minister is a cunt, and his aim is to model the Canadian judicial/penal system on the US model. No offense to you or any other Americans, but that's pretty retarded (I don't think it's working so well...). Guns are also a lot harder to obtain here. Mind you, if I wanted one, I could certainly get one. That NDAA legislation is really eye-opening.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Barbijuana on October 31, 2012, 01:13 am
"Executive Orders" are passed by the President alone with no checks and balances -- That laundry list is the ones that President Obama has passed during his term so far. Although I fear another 4 year term, I don't think it will be any better and may in fact be worse with Mitt Romney.

Anything that is an "Act" has gone through Congress, Senate and then the President's desk. Then it is reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it is adherent to the Constitution.

The real power of the President is the Veto (and ending all foreign conflicts) -- Any law that passes Congress and House, the president can go, "Nah, that's bullshit" and shoot it down immediately. Congress along with Senate will then have to vote in a 2/3 majority to overturn such a veto.

----

What it comes down too, and I really believe this, is that the current system is corrupt beyond repair. The style if flawed and cannot legislate over an America that is so diverse in opinion and vast in expanse. Local community and State government operate more efficiently and in tune with the will of it's constituents. The Civil War was fought over a succession of State's Rights over a Federal Union (Be it a terrible Right they were fighting for: Slavery) and it was one of the biggest travesties (and triumph) to personal Liberty that the South had lost. Had it been a war of economic sovereignty than this point would hold more validity and less emotional disdain.

(Speaking to my American brethren) In order to stop the power and influence of the Federal Government, we, as a society, need to have a phase shift of conscious towards what we believe a government should be. In order to do so we need to:

1. Stop joining the military (This is tough since economic disparity leads a lot of poor and underprivileged into service for Money. /tinfoil hat This may be intentional)
2. Get very involved in developing or supporting your local food and energy supplementation. Buying local is a vote towards a community that is self sustainable.
3. Elect a State Treasurer who understands the Federal Reserve and stop paying your Income Taxes.
4. Elect a Sheriff that you trust and will not uphold unconstitutional authority.
5. Elect a Governor who will say, "Fuck you Mr. President"
6. Sit back and laugh at these assholes that pass laws to tell you what you can and can't do.
7. Nod at your neighbor and offer them a place at your table and a refill for their glass.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: ZenAndTheArt on October 31, 2012, 01:50 am
I'm much happier living in a place with strict gun laws (UK). Our very low level of gun crime justifies that to me. People do own guns here for sporting reasons, you just need to jump through more hoops to get one.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: smokeweed420 on October 31, 2012, 08:46 am
I live in a rough area and its necessary to my familys protection that i own a single hand gun for our protection.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: 40opana on November 02, 2012, 07:11 am
I'll admit I haven't read the entire Federalist papers, but I believe between those papers and some more recent readings of the 2nd amendment, the limitations on the right for militia men (militia in this sense to mean all able bodied men) to carry arms was whatever firearm would be standard issue infantry at that time. Thus, no nukes, but possibly RPGs (technically you can own them in most US States) and TRUE assault rifles (ie: 3rd burst or full auto capability) is what would be 'reasonable' for our time.

The 2nd amendment is in place to allow a populace to overthrow their government if they so chose, but they never envisioned the types of weapons systems we have today.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: johnwholesome on November 02, 2012, 07:23 am
To all the people that need their guns to "protect the constitution from a tyrannical government"...................................where were you in 2000 when the public vote was usurped?

Where were you when the majority of the public voted for a democratic president and the electoral college betrayed its voters followed by legal "trickery" by a very right-wing supreme court?

Ah I see, not so much defending the public will if that would mean a party would be in power that threatened your precious toys.

It's all bullshittery to the max. Protecting the constitution and freedom my ass. Big guns compensate for small dicks or fragile egos or both.

Hey I dun judge. Big fat gun is coooooool. I love going to the range pew pew pow. But please, none of that freedom protect rights, keep the government in check crap because it is tremendous BULLSHIT. Or have you seen any minutemen walking at the supreme court in 2000?
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: inigo on November 02, 2012, 04:24 pm
The reason people wouldn't be stockpiling nuclear weapons in their backyards is because nobody would trade with a neighbor like that. Those kinds of people who are not obeying the socially accepted reasonable self defense standards would be ostracized and would have such a hard time surviving when nobody would agree to trade or do business with them.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: johnwholesome on November 03, 2012, 06:05 am
The reason people wouldn't be stockpiling nuclear weapons in their backyards is because nobody would trade with a neighbor like that. Those kinds of people who are not obeying the socially accepted reasonable self defense standards would be ostracized and would have such a hard time surviving when nobody would agree to trade or do business with them.

I might have to disagree with you on that. Because someone always does trade, that's just a simple fact. Depending on what flavor of anarchism/libertarianism/whachamacallit there are different names and descriptions for this self-regulating mechanism, in the end it all goes back to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand".

People with a penchant for having the "biggest gun" usually do not get swayed by social pressure, as a matter of fact, it reinforces their belief in having to have an even bigger gun. Whatever you make legal, some guys will stock and few percentage of those that stock it will use it. Just as many many Americans have guns but only a few decide to shoot up theaters. Very often you will hear how no one saw it coming, no one would have expected it.

This automatic "downregulation" would only work if a) nukes would give you a purple rash or something that lets everyone know that you stock nukes, and b)a society that would be closed in rank in deciding not to trade as communally imposed sanction. Both are unlikely. People stocking weapons suitable to wipe out large numbers of people at once usually do so quite stealthily and someone always takes the money. 
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: inigo on November 06, 2012, 04:57 am
You are right, if we are talking about the people we are today. But I assure you that we as a human race are quickly evolving into a much more intelligent and remarkably bright species. I predict that over the next 50 years or so we will make mind blowing progress in fields like psychology and eventually will be able to eradicate "less-than-perfect" mental health issues. I have enough faith in mankind to know that we will eventually be responsible enough to handle pure and absolute freedom and society will be able to function in a voluntary and co-operative manner.

Another point: If you look at the historical rate of how many hours the average man has to work each week to make enough wealth for him and his family to survive has been shrinking more and more over the years. Couple hundred years ago, they would have laughed at the idea of being able to provide for an entire family by working only 40 hours a week, with weekends off, and 2 weeks of vacation time each year. Continuing this trend, eventually we will make enough money to survive for a year on one day of work a week, maybe less. Imagine how much less violence there would be in a world without poverty and where everyone has perfect mental health. With the exponential growth rate we are on technologically, we are progressing faster than you can imagine.

In any case, just because a government exists doesn't mean its impossible for somebody to stockpile nukes in a major metropolitan area. A free market homeland security company could easily find enough demand to offer the service of keeping an eye on anyone who is acquiring nuclear materials and preventing disasters. I would trust that company to adapt, prosper, and succeed at deterring nuclear weapons way more than I trust the DHS to keep me safe.

It's all boils down to your beliefs on the true character of human nature. And I for one am very optimistic. :)
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: j3an on November 06, 2012, 10:24 pm
The reason people wouldn't be stockpiling nuclear weapons in their backyards is because nobody would trade with a neighbor like that. Those kinds of people who are not obeying the socially accepted reasonable self defense standards would be ostracized and would have such a hard time surviving when nobody would agree to trade or do business with them.

Thanks for this very factual answer; just what I was looking for.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Aoth14 on November 06, 2012, 11:01 pm
To what extent? until you've negatively affected the rights and freedoms of another person who does not deserve those rights to be offended.

Its that simple. Law is that simple. Anyone who buys into the idea that the system has to be any more complicated than defining what actions violates the rights of others and what doesnt, is living a sad life.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: johnwholesome on November 07, 2012, 03:22 am
You are right, if we are talking about the people we are today. But I assure you that we as a human race are quickly evolving into a much more intelligent and remarkably bright species. I predict that over the next 50 years or so we will make mind blowing progress in fields like psychology and eventually will be able to eradicate "less-than-perfect" mental health issues. I have enough faith in mankind to know that we will eventually be responsible enough to handle pure and absolute freedom and society will be able to function in a voluntary and co-operative manner.

Another point: If you look at the historical rate of how many hours the average man has to work each week to make enough wealth for him and his family to survive has been shrinking more and more over the years. Couple hundred years ago, they would have laughed at the idea of being able to provide for an entire family by working only 40 hours a week, with weekends off, and 2 weeks of vacation time each year. Continuing this trend, eventually we will make enough money to survive for a year on one day of work a week, maybe less. Imagine how much less violence there would be in a world without poverty and where everyone has perfect mental health. With the exponential growth rate we are on technologically, we are progressing faster than you can imagine.

In any case, just because a government exists doesn't mean its impossible for somebody to stockpile nukes in a major metropolitan area. A free market homeland security company could easily find enough demand to offer the service of keeping an eye on anyone who is acquiring nuclear materials and preventing disasters. I would trust that company to adapt, prosper, and succeed at deterring nuclear weapons way more than I trust the DHS to keep me safe.

It's all boils down to your beliefs on the true character of human nature. And I for one am very optimistic. :)

I may not agree, but your optimism is certainly "conntagious" :)

+1
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: inigo on November 07, 2012, 06:19 am
You are right, if we are talking about the people we are today. But I assure you that we as a human race are quickly evolving into a much more intelligent and remarkably bright species. I predict that over the next 50 years or so we will make mind blowing progress in fields like psychology and eventually will be able to eradicate "less-than-perfect" mental health issues. I have enough faith in mankind to know that we will eventually be responsible enough to handle pure and absolute freedom and society will be able to function in a voluntary and co-operative manner.

Another point: If you look at the historical rate of how many hours the average man has to work each week to make enough wealth for him and his family to survive has been shrinking more and more over the years. Couple hundred years ago, they would have laughed at the idea of being able to provide for an entire family by working only 40 hours a week, with weekends off, and 2 weeks of vacation time each year. Continuing this trend, eventually we will make enough money to survive for a year on one day of work a week, maybe less. Imagine how much less violence there would be in a world without poverty and where everyone has perfect mental health. With the exponential growth rate we are on technologically, we are progressing faster than you can imagine.

In any case, just because a government exists doesn't mean its impossible for somebody to stockpile nukes in a major metropolitan area. A free market homeland security company could easily find enough demand to offer the service of keeping an eye on anyone who is acquiring nuclear materials and preventing disasters. I would trust that company to adapt, prosper, and succeed at deterring nuclear weapons way more than I trust the DHS to keep me safe.

It's all boils down to your beliefs on the true character of human nature. And I for one am very optimistic. :)

I may not agree, but your optimism is certainly "conntagious" :)

+1

 ;D I couldn't hope to spread anything else more.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Ben on November 09, 2012, 02:57 am
I think that the vast majority, if not all, true libertarians would agree that a man has the right to bear arms to protect his family i.e. a gun. It is a tragedy to me that that in the UK, you are unable to keep a gun in your home to protect yourself from intruders. The situation has gotten slightly better, with the government broadening its definition of 'reasonable force', but firearms apart from game/clay pigeon shotguns are still illegal.

I suppose the same rules apply here in the netherlands mostly - you can only own a firearm if you have a good very good excuse for it, such as hunting or being a member of a shooting club or something similar.

Personally i despise this legislation, since it only results in criminals having guns and decent citizens not having any. Practically, someone that decides to rob a bank using a firearm would not really worry about the additional criminal charge of owning a firearm without a license when the main offense is bank robbery. Courts also rarely impose heavier sentences in such cases because the weapon used was illegal.

As to what weapon someone would be legally allowed to own, i suppose its a practical matter. For some reason it seems reasonable that some individual weapons capability should not exceed that of the state, which would exclude nuclear weapons apart from those of the most basic design. When you add biological weapons to the mix it becomes a lot harder to police however - its hard to tell if a biological agent would kill 100 or 100 million people unless you actually use it.

I'd be happy to debate on which powerful weapons should be allowed or not once we obtain the right to posses small and practical weapons in the EU. Even automatic weapons like an AK may be subject to debate, but something like a simple glock 17 sidearm should be something any European should be legally to own and carry. 

Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: The Consultant on November 10, 2012, 03:55 am
Anything up to being a private militia, because there are always dangerous psychopaths who will turn their attacks against innocent civilians and not the state, to strike out at the state. Not to say there isn't avoidance to say that both parties in militia vs state have done terrible things, but the gun legislation is a slippery slope and the way we've done it so far works well.

When the grip tightens, pressure increases, and more people try to slip through the fingers and are more likely to explode. The state knows this.

- The Consultant
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: upandaway on November 10, 2012, 09:47 am
No regulations, period.

Having the potential to commit battery or homicide is not the same thing as committing battery or homicide.
Otherwise, we should ban martial arts training, gasoline, gunpowder, chainsaws, cars..

That doesn't mean everyone should completely ignore the guy stockpiling Mac-10s and ANFO, but until he tries to harm someone else with these things, he hasn't violated anyone else's rights.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Ben on November 11, 2012, 03:29 am
I understand you reasoning behind that.

But on the other hand, should one single person posess a weapon that is capable of ending the human race?
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: ZenAndTheArt on November 11, 2012, 11:28 pm
A good friend of mine was murdered in his home by a mentally ill person who was released into society (who had no history of violent behaviour). And I still strongly believe that more guns would lead to more gun crime (in the UK).

I'm not being naive, I know a criminal can get a gun here if they want one. Maybe it's just a different cultural attitude in the UK that keeps are gun crime low, I don't know?
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Ben on November 12, 2012, 01:57 am
A wider availability of guns to the general public will probably cause an increase in crimes involving guns.

The reason for that is that a gun is a fairly simple to use tool to kill someone.

If no guns were available at all (i.e. they simply were never invented or something like that), and i wanted to kill someone, what exactly would stop me from doing so? If a gun is not available, people choose other means of murdering others, perhaps resorting to knives, bows and arrows, cars, explosive devices or whatever would be effective.

Availability of guns to the general public would probably cause an increase in the number of people getting shot, and a reduction in the number of people getting stabbed to death. Overall, this is not that big of a change at all.  If someone is intent on murdering someone they can find numerous means other than guns to do so - just as deadly, just more messy.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: paraiso on November 13, 2012, 12:51 am
I think that the main purpose for this legislation is to restrict the amount of firearms in a country. For me, coming from a country that has restricted the sale of firearms, I agree with the legislation. I can see how people are arguing that it's taking away their rights etc, but I think that it would definitely decrease the amount of gun violence. If I am a police officer, I am able to pretty much assume that anyone that carries a firearm without a very good reason for having one, has one for the wrong reasons. Overall, you couldn't argue that having more guns in circulation is going to reduce gun violence.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Right to bear Arms - To what extent?
Post by: Ben on November 13, 2012, 02:02 am
I live in a european country which bans civilians from legally owning firearms to a great degree. Criminals commonly have firearms despite legislation, however.

There is a difference between the right to own a weapon and what you can legally do wit it. I would like to see it legal for people to have a loaded firearm in their home, and perhaps also in their vehicles. Surely i do not want to see people waving guns around the streets, resulting in unintentional shootings and what not.

Also, i don't really mind having some practical restrictions, comparable to driving a car: You need a license to do that, but that license can be obtained by demonstrating you can operate the car/gun properly. Also, you are not allowed to drive a car in public when drunk, which would be a very good limitation for firearms as well, as it would probably persuade people from leaving their gun at home when they go out drinking resulting in idiot drunk shootouts.