Have any of you folks seen this fellow's proposal? Personally, I'm just happy to see *someone* suggesting something other than AWB 2.0 or 'get rid of all semi-automatic rifles.'
Have any of you folks seen this fellow's proposal? Personally, I'm just happy to see *someone* suggesting something other than AWB 2.0 or 'get rid of all semi-automatic rifles.'
I don't understand what's happening, but I have a soldering iron.
Haven't we all been the militia since around 1792?
--Josh
“Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.
All I can say if font budge an inch
Don't give in and don't surrender anything
They will not stop so nether should we.
Sounds like some bull crap to me.
There are 300,000,000+ people in this country... 26 children being slaughtered is a travesty of the greatest magnitude, but it isn't a "problem" that needs fixing. This is the safest place, in the safest time in human history.
NO NEW LAWS
They once called me bkb0000...
Another "don't read the comments" warning needs to go along with that link.
Quoted from the article, as the author explains the "merits" of his proposal:
"...they could buy and own them, but they would have to keep those guns at the firing range, which after all is the only place where they can be legitimately used."
What a fabulous idea! I'm sure it would be overwhelmingly supported, especially by career criminals who specialize in activities such as kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, etc.
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms" - Opinion of the Court, District of Columbia v Heller.
And that's all I have to say about that.
twitter.com/ddbaxte
"Legitimate sportsmen." So glad to hear that my hobbies aren't legitimate because they don't involve actually killing anything.
I really wish some of these people would actually read some of the history of the phrase a 'well-regulated militia.'
They don't get it. It's not that I think Obama is going to start rounding people up. It's that once you take the guns away, they're gone. Germany went from the height of western liberal culture under Weimar to gas chambers in under 20 years. In the time since those CMP Garands were last pressed into service the US has seen five wars, the cold war, race riots, lynchings, devastating storms, terrorist attacks, and two presidents threatened with impeachment. I'm not expect it all to come crashing down next week, but you can't prove to me it won't in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my children. The militia clause is some of the most long-term thinking in the constitution. Not a back door into taking away the rest of the right.
Originally Posted by dbateman
These are both fine sentiments, but I can't help but think it might be more productive to engage in a discussion about regulations that might be less pointless than an AWB 2.0. On the off chance that something <strong>does</strong> get passed, wouldn't you rather that gun owners had some hand in the process?
I'm not saying the author definitely 'gets it' but at least he's not spouting 'no one needs that' verbatim.
Being absolutely unwilling to consider the other side of a debate can't be positive. I know a lot of folks 'over there' aren't even really aware of current regulations, are often ignorant about firearms in general, but stonewalling every discussion with 'no more laws' and 'shall not be infringed' didn't do anything to stop the '94 AWB, did it?
These are legitimate questions, I don't want to see new regulations any more than any of you, but I would like to know that there's some level of sanity going into potential legislation, and discussion is the only solution I see.
I don't understand what's happening, but I have a soldering iron.
derek, I get that we need to be involved in the process. But the issue is that the proposed solution is *worse* than an AWB 2.0. The AWB mostly just made things inconvenient and raised the cost of normal magazines. He's talking about convincing states to prevent the firearms that *matter* for the core purpose of the second amendment from living in private hands at all.
I like shooting AR's. I like 3-gun, it's fun, and it's a neat sport. But it's not the reason that the 2nd amendment exists, any more than Twilight and Justin Bieber are the reason the 1st amendment exists.
There are a few levels of 'compromise' I could get behind. Gun owner id's with a background check requirement for sales (with a provision that they let you sell/carry across state lines). Safe storage requirements that still allow you to have a loaded gun next to the bed while you sleep (but want you to lock it up when you leave the house).
But compromise means meet in the middle, and not "we ratchet things in the direction you prefer."
Ok first off I'm an Aussie in Aussieland.
One thing I do know is that anti gunners don't want anyone to have guns they believe that only the police and the military are the only people that should be allowed to have guns.
These people are mentally ill they will not stop.
you may think ok so we give up a few AR's and an M1 or two they'll be happy? Not a chance they will never be happy they do not want you to be armed at all, I can see the idea behind there logic IE: if no one had a gun there would not be any shootings the problem is people have guns and changing laws only affect honest people the crims don't follow the laws, and if they don't have a firearm they will use something else.
Over here we had a ban on semi auto rifles and pump shotguns, then we went to no more than ten round mag.
Now we cant own certain cal rifles ie: 50bmg 408cheytac and so on, in one state of Au it is very hard to own even a 300wm.
We cannot import mags for Rem 7615 because they can be used in a AR15.
Then they went after hand guns, we can still own a semi auto hand gun (but they are trying pretty hard to get them banned at the mo)
To own a semi it has to have a 5" barrel it cant be shorter than 5" we also can not own a normal capacity mag we are limited to ten rounds.
Revolvers need to have a barrel length of 4"
Oh did I mention that we cant own anything over .38cal without jumping thru a lot of hoops.
You can not have a loaded pistol mag outside of a registered pistol range in the eyes of the law it is considered a loaded pistol=up to 10yrs jail.
Possession of an unregistered firearm mandatory sentencing five years jail, they are trying to get life sentencing for the possession of an unregistered firearm, it's going thru parliament now.
Life in jail for owning a gun nothing more... these people will not stop they are nuts.
Do not negotiate with them.
Reply With Quote