Old(er) 2A Article... Thoughts from the Collective?

[Corlissimo]

Found this the other day while researching 2A issues.
Has anyone seen this? Personally, I kind of like the angle.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622?ref=email

If this has been posted in the past, I apologize, but I thought it was worth discussing in light of the current 2A "climate" in the US. (Mods, please treat accordingly if necessary.)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[G60]

Quite a fantasy.

He's updated his post here:

https://joshuaflashman.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/outline-of-2013-militia-act/

"Every single person ages 36 and older that currently has a license to carry or own a gun, and every single gun owner will, after the passage of this Act, report to their nearest police station, sheriff’s office or state police barracks for a fingerprint background check." That's gonna go over well, among other things.

From the CNN iReport: "Here's what I propose, after nearly 2 decades of research." But the guy is only 25 years old...

He's on twitter, too.

[nalesq]

Found this the other day while researching 2A issues.
Has anyone seen this? Personally, I kind of like the angle.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622?ref=email

If this has been posted in the past, I apologize, but I thought it was worth discussing in light of the current 2A "climate" in the US. (Mods, please treat accordingly if necessary.)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This article reminds me of "compromise" arguments I have had with prohibitionists. Whatever its merits, no one on the prohibitionist side will ever go for anything which puts deadly weapons in the hands of private citizens. I once proposed something similar, where I posited, if I (representing the law-abiding citizenry) were willing to be subjected to a relatively rigorous initial and periodic background check and the same firearms qualification requirements as a police officer (which, at least in North Carolina, do not seem terribly onerous), would you (representing those who claim to want "reasonable limits" and "compromise" on private weapon ownership) be cool with letting me possess and carry any kind of weapon in common use by law enforcement, wherever I chose, without limitation? After some hemming and hawing, in the end he said no.

It is not the "background check" or "training" part that prohibitionists truly care about in connection to with the right to bear arms - fundamentally, it is the "private citizen" part they have a problem with. The prohibitionist does not believe private citizens should be entrusted with the capability of executing life-and-death decisions. They believe that the government should have a monopoly on using deadly force.

For example, a common prohibitionist refrain is, no one should have something [e.g., an "assault weapon"] that is designed to kill people. What about the police and the military? I ask. That's different, they say.

[Corlissimo]

Somehow I missed the newly updated blog post (guess I was lazy) so thanks for the link.

I still like the overall angle but I think the practical adoption & implementation is a pipe dream. I also don't think that you'll have every eligible person in the country signing up for it. There are still far too many hoplophobes. If, by some miracle, it did come to be, I think there'd be all kinds of issues with the UN and the world community. Like it or not, that is, in my mind, something to take into consideration.

I have more thoughts I think, just too jumbled in my head (plus I'm sitting in the hospital with other things on my mind) to get them out in a coherent and logical manner.

I'd still like to hear from those who have a much higher 2A IQ than I do. :)



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD