Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I copied this from a liberal blog, this is what passes for "reasonable gun control". For many on this blog this does not go nearly far enough as they call for an outright ban on the private ownership of firearms. I love the part about endangering building stability. :aargh4:

Our Founding Fathers, even as progressive enlightenment thinkers, could not have foreseen the destructive capability of hand weapons 175(+) years into the future. In fact; because they were enlightenment thinkers, they would have had a predisposition to not envisioning these kinds of weapons. The enlightenment was a humanistic movement, one that thought humans would move forward into a future free of oppression and tyranny. Most enlightenment thinkers (Locke, Mills, Jefferson, Madison, etc) were a bit naive; they failed to take into account mankind's inherent flaws and/or twisted psyches. That aside; I say we accept that they expected firearms to advance in complexity and accuracy. And we interpret the second amendment as accounting for that but not accounting for the twisted direction we went instead of directly forward.

I always thought that if we regulated magazine fed weapons just a bit differently. Like we do with automatic weapons (yes; you can own submachine guns, sawed off shotguns, dragooned pistols etc; you just need a class III Federal Firearms License). One of the requirements for a class III license is protective storage. Do something similar for military style magazine fed weapons. That we regulate the weapons, not the owners. A grace period is established to account for all weapons (models to be determined) and any discovery of unaccounted weapons results in their confiscation.

Lets call it the "Militia Equipment Act” for now, and it would cover military styled weapons (magazine fed weapons of calibers and models determined before passage, with the reasoning laid out for a guide to future inclusions). Right to own same as now; weapon storage rules greatly enhanced. Weapons must be stored separately from magazines and ammunition, in locked containers with completely separated locking mechanisms. Weapon safes must be fastened to building framework, secured in such a way as to endanger building stability if violently removed. Magazine and ammunition storage must be fastened to floors or walls in such a way as to severely impede mobility; and fire resistant for (X) mins at (X) temps.
Access to be controlled by the owner of controlled firearms. Ownership by individual or married couples exclusively.

If adequate storage cannot be accomplished in a private residence, then group armories can be established, private or municipal. In Group weapon safes, each weapon must be secured by it's owner by an exclusively controlled locking mechanism.

Weapons without detachable magazines legal status remains unchanged. Pistols with removable magazines can be subject to MEA if so determined. All stored weapons must be unloaded.

Ready Firearm exception: One loaded protection firearm maybe kept in a residence. It must be secured with a tamper resistant device but not exclusively a lock. As the chance of being attacked by criminals in platoon strength is somewhat far-fetched, weapons covered by the MEA would not be eligible as a ready firearm.



How is that for a start?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
How is that for a start?
NO MORE INFRINGEMENT.....

How is that for an answer?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,647 Posts
Yes, I know my enemy, the majority are my elected representatives at the county, state and federal levels.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
So these people think your Constitutional Rights are obsolete? !! What a bunch of BS. Yet these same people exercise their 1st Amendment right of free speech which was earned by people in the founding father's day using weapons. The weapons that over took the tyrannical government of the British. We will never change the thought of the typical liberal, only fight off the liberal thought and ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
So these people think your Constitutional Rights are obsolete? !! What a bunch of BS. Yet these same people exercise their 1st Amendment right of free speech which was earned by people in the founding father's day using weapons. The weapons that over took the tyrannical government of the British. We will never change the thought of the typical liberal, only fight off the liberal thought and ideas.
The author didn't say rights as written were obsolete.
But it is a bunch of BS.
I mean, calling the greatest minds of the time "naive" is damned funny...
Limiting a household to one "ready firearm" is ludicrous.
Ownership by individuals or married couples only.... Well, let's see... if you aren't married, you're an individual... so everyone can own 'em? And, if you're shackin' up, both of you are individuals living within the same domicile...

Guy likes to think he can think. And proves himself wrong by putting it to paper...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,124 Posts
The enlightenment was a humanistic movement, one that thought humans would move forward into a future free of oppression and tyranny.
The first paragraph illustrates the flaw: They understood they must build protections and guards AGAINST oppression and tyranny, thus the Second. They had seen the evil and built in safeguards against it.

The writer got it BACKWARDS. What an idiot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
I have only one question who is more dangerous a law abiding citizen with guns or raising a kid in a house where every other word is Mother where third generation EBS cards is the norm, where Husband is no longer used but my babies daddy is the term. Where ask is replaced with axe me no questions. Which is dangerous for the contiuation of the US.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Rock and Glock got it correct above. His arguments against gun ownership, namely tyranny and evil, are the exact reasons that support gun ownership, and the reason the founding fathers found it necessary to add the 2nd amendment in the first place.

Of course he's entitled his views. I do wonder what he'll think if he's ever in a situation where something goes "bump" in the night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
Rock and Glock got it correct above. His arguments against gun ownership, namely tyranny and evil, are the exact reasons that support gun ownership, and the reason the founding fathers found it necessary to add the 2nd amendment in the first place.
That might be true back in the days when the 2nd Amendment was created and the firearms that a person has were close to the same as what the military used. But do any of you really think that you could stand up to the US military if they came after you?

What protects us today is the military taking seriously their Oaths to the Constitution, they are what ensures that our government is not going to become a dictatorship. The reason that we need the 2nd Amendment today is that the government isn't able to be there to protect us when we need them the most. "When second count, the police will be there any minute." Or just look at Katerina and it will show you that you must be able to protect yourself and your family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
The author didn't say rights as written were obsolete.
But it is a bunch of BS.
I mean, calling the greatest minds of the time "naive" is damned funny...
Limiting a household to one "ready firearm" is ludicrous.
Ownership by individuals or married couples only.... Well, let's see... if you aren't married, you're an individual... so everyone can own 'em? And, if you're shackin' up, both of you are individuals living within the same domicile...

Guy likes to think he can think. And proves himself wrong by putting it to paper...
The author said exactly that:

Our Founding Fathers, even as progressive enlightenment thinkers, could not have foreseen the destructive capability of hand weapons 175(+) years into the future.
He is saying that since "hand weapons" are now beyond capable of destruction that the framers of our Constitution could have seen, our right to freely keep and bear arms is obsolete. Keeping them locked up in a community chest controlled by the Govt or other third party certainly is not the same as keeping and bearing.

I'd be willing to give him only one of my firearms to keep, but only if he listened to where I told him he could shove it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
That might be true back in the days when the 2nd Amendment was created and the firearms that a person has were close to the same as what the military used. But do any of you really think that you could stand up to the US military if they came after you?
I wouldn't be able to fend off the military by myself, but the point of the 2nd Amendment wasn't for a single individual to resist tyranny, but the whole of the oppressed people (a mass of individuals) to resist using their individual firearms. We have witnessed the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare over the past few decades and it could be as effective in the US if it came to it, which I hope it doesn't.

IRTT: The author lost me early on when he stated that the founders didn't take into account the flaws in humanity. I'd say the entire Constitution was written with this in mind. They understood the evil disposition of mankind and that individuals would seek to become all-powerful and dominate the weaker. That's why our government was founded the way it was, so that there would be checks and balances in place to minimize the ability of one person to enslave the masses.

The 2nd Amendment is the teeth in the document which enables the people to keep their government in check when the other checks fail. It could be argued that the power of firearms is either inconsequential to the founders' ideals (the size or power of the gun doesn't matter because it is the idea of fighting back that matters), or that it is perfectly inline with them (citizens with access to powerful weapons can more easily fight back against a powerful government).

Either way, the author has it bass ackwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzadik

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
They are allowed to have their views just like we are allowed to have our views, no matter how wrong their view toward the 2nd Amendment is.
No, he's publishing and proselytizing his 'views' and asking for a new law and inviting others, with questionable motives, to ratify it. That's different than having an opinion.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,600 Posts
But do any of you really think that you could stand up to the US military if they came after you?
Depends, I can't think of a gorilla war that we have won yet, and the Afghans kicked the snot outta the great Russian bear.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
No, he's publishing and proselytizing his 'views' and asking for a new law and inviting others, with questionable motives, to ratify it. That's different than having an opinion.
Opinon:
a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
He has a view, made judgements, that were formed in his mind about a particular manner. I do not see where he has questionable motives..in fact, I think they are quite clear.

That to me.....is an opinion. I do not know what to make of your reply to the post "No". He can't write what he wants or he should state that it is not an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerJ

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,124 Posts
Ownership by individual or married couples exclusively.
I wonder what the heck this idiot meant by this. :lolp:

The more I thought about this the more stupid I felt. Everyone who read this is now dumber for having read it.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top