An end to our problems

L

Little-e

New member
I think I have it figured out. We can end most violent criminal activity and show everyone how benificial an armed society is within 6 months.

All we have to do is impose the laws of the old west, minus the no firearms in some towns, nationwide. I promise you the goblins will think twice about doing someting stupid with 50 armed good guys standing around. I still believe in due process so I don't think we should all become killers but the occasional posse wouldn't be bad.

It would also be quite humorous to see a bunch of idiots thrown in a pit with doo-doo dumped on their heads. Add politicians, judges, and an occasional fed. as needed.

I know I'm just dreaming but sometimes dreams are nice.
 
It would also be quite humorous to see a bunch of idiots thrown in a pit with doo-doo dumped on their heads. Add politicians, judges, and an occasional fed. as needed.

You've got a redundancy, there.

HTH.
 
Don't know about fed=idiot...they could just be smart enough to do us in. Remember, who are the smartest men at any concentration camp or prison? Armed guards, and if you disagree, that's a bullet for you, scum!
 
I don't know. If frontier justice was so great, how come we didn't keep it? Did something go awry in America's history, or perhaps it was a change for the better and we didn't realize it?

The gun policy of the Old West had its share of problems. Desperatos just as well-armed as anyone else robbing trains, banks, and stagecoachs. It is this reason alone, and the fear that surrounded it that have prompted many of the more well-developed and "civilized" townships to impose a law to check your guns before you check in.

See, I believe the entire gun control issue is a wild goose chase. Arming everybody isn't the answer, and neither is banning. We've become so engrossed about the pieces of inanimate objects that, IMHO, we have lost sight of what the real issue is: Taking the weapons out of the hands of bad guys, and putting it into the hands of good guys. This means a proactive, aggressive approach to firearms regulations. Not banning, not wide-open legalization, but a delibrate, systematic filtering so that only the good guys who have proven themselves to be trustworthy can carry.

And what do I mean by that? Several states have already legalized conceal carry, provided that they have went through a series of background checks and have met some minimum, formal training, where they have shown to be competent with their tools. Well, I'd like to see that extended with firearm ownership in general. Hey, why not? We have to be trained anyways. Like I'd really feel safe if any idiot off the street, who couldn't tell the difference between the muzzle from the butt, to just walk into some gun shop and get themselves a gun. And, a background check isn't unreasonable nor does it violate our 2nd amendment. I believe that we have the right to bear arms. However, I also believe that it is a right that has to be earned, not given blindly. Ultimately, the issue should be about regulating people, not guns. And finally, I believe if we all do our part, we can indeed make this country an armed and safe society that we've always sought after.
 
SB, what you say makes good sense, except to me all that does is just give the government
a bigger data base of gun owners. i do not believe for one second that after the background checks, that they will dispose of the information in the alloted time period. they got you in a data bank, SB- applied for such and such gun on this date, SB- was also approved for these guns, blah, blah ,blah....I just don't like that. it's a shame we have a government that lies all the time. JMO

------------------
fiat justitia
 
I have some trouble with acknowledging the precedent set there, since I have had anti's suggest that a citizen should be forced to have several years' training prior to even purchasing a firearm of any kind. So, if you concede the ability to require training instead of sticking to the requirement to be personally responsible (which would cause you to get the training needed anyway) you put into the gov'ts hand the power to effectively prohibit.

That said, I can also agree with your intent, and support it by pointing out that this might even be a valid place for "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment. When it was written, we were talking of flintlocks, I don't think even cap and ball was invented for a long time thereafter. Folks, if you were not well trained and practiced with a flintlock, you could not possibly even make it shoot, much less hit anything with it. IOW, training was automatically enforced, they never even thought about it.

Today, OTOH, any jerk can walk into a gun store and with a few hundred dollars buy a firearm which takes about 3 minutes of reading the instructions to render 100% effective, fires every time, and is accurate with iron sights to ranges the Founding Fathers never dreamed of. So making training an external requirement certainly has some merit.

Larry P.
 
Larry,
I agree with you to an extreme! See if there is any logic here:

- The Second Amendment term "militia" meant virtually all able-bodied men.
- We've updated that to include women.
- The Second Amendment requires the militia (therefore virtually ALL able-bodied Americans) to be well-regulated. I understand that means "trained".
- Therefore, the federal government, under the intent of the Second Amendment, should REQUIRE virtually all able-bodied Americans to undergo standardized firearms training appropriate to a militia.
((I could rant on, but you see where I'm heading.))

Whatcha think?

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited May 28, 1999).]
 
SB,
In an ideal world, I would agree with the concept of "filtering" gun owners. Problem for me is there is no group I feel I could trust with such filtering.

If Jury Nullification still existed, I would advocate, "Train 'em all, imprison the bad guys!" Problem now is defining "bad guys" - it's done with the stroke of a pen by those who would enslave us.

I realize it's easy for me to attack others' positions without suggesting a better option. Unfortunately, my only options seem unobtainable:
- Re-implement Jury Nullification to "spread out" (between government AND the people) the definition of "crime".
- Require training of all able-bodied Americans.
- Separate out from the public those few who abuse their rights and responsibilities and therefore require closer supervision (probation, jail, prison, or whatever).

(I hope there are better suggestions than my "pie-in-the-sky" dreams.)
 
Okay, you folks got me on the "I don't trust the government" sentiment. I mean, if you really feel that way, well I guess I can't blame you, and I doubt I can change your minds.

So, how about a middle man? Say, NRA for example? Would you folks trust the NRA to set a regulation guideline upon which we should follow? Or has this already been done?
 
I think I might go for NRA regulations. Every now and then I get the feeling they sway to the dark side but I'll pick them over the elected ones any day. While I don't agree with everything they do, I still keep my membership up.
 
The problem with setting and enforcing standards is that the standards inevitably get changed. One year at a time. Until no one but the political elites can qualify. Again. Just like the old world of celebrity/politico-only CCWs.

Let's just try for freedom. And included in that freedom can be education. State-mandated training for all is a good thing. Just don't start futzing with people's rights with a performance test at the end.

You have the right to be stupid. You have the right to die. And the crooks have NEVER shown any reluctance to acquire the minimal skills needed to terrorize others.

So, let's shift the balance of power a bit so all citizens are taught at least once how to unload the gun that the crook dropped when he got up-close and personal with your baseball bat.

We must do it for the children. :)
 
Cheapo,
"... for the children." God, I love it!! :D
All,
Well, ya got me. If we have standards, somebody's got to set them, somebody has to evaluate at least the standards and keep them updated, etc.
If training is to be of any value, there has to be some sort of testing to see if there has been an improvement between the beginning and the completion of training.
Hmmm, no matter who gets the authority, they can abuse it. If nobody has the authority, then we still will have dummies with guns.
Argh. Brain hurt.
Okay. I hereby stand up and demand that my solution be heard! ... "I ain't got a clue!"
(Dennis sits down and hushes, contemplating Shiner Bock and the Indy 500...)
 
The thing here is "shall not be infringed" while I understand and even agree somewhat with the reasoning I can't get past that phrase.

If we are going to change an Amendment it should be the first- Freedom of speech, but
only if you have something intelligent to say. That would shut up Rosie O'Donald, Ted &
Jane, 60% of congress, and the entire Democratic National Party.

The real problem here, is it's impossible to legislate responsibility, we either except it or we don't, when we don't the repercussions should fit the transgression but there should be no loss of right and/or privileges on your part for errors on my part, and requiring training for firearms ownership because others have made errors in judgment in the past is doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top