Are there any restrictions we can agree with??

No restrictions to anyone eligible to vote (this excludes felons and youths).

Heres what Hamilton (one of those long-haired guys that helped Madison draft the second amendment) had to say about mandatory firearms training for the militia - us).

The Federalist Number XXIX - CONCERNING THE MILITIA

"..Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped: and in order to see that this is not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

Both Madison and Hamilton say a number of times that the right to keep and bear arms is not incumbent on training or being an organized militia - merely that the people be armed and encouraged to keep up their skill at arms.
They don't envision training, calling it "impracticable...pernicious...disagreeable...expensive...burdensome..injurious to the public and ruinous to private citizens" .

So no, I don't think I want any legislated training that can be constantly tightened until it becomes a burden and I give up my right to bear arms.
Its not the governments business until we are invaded and they ask for my help (or some treason occurs and we all march on Washington and start shooting the bastids..).




------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Well, I can't resist...
Seems to me that the real subject is " how much compromise". Harking back to the days when compromise meant "I give you something, you give me something" rather than "I demand everything, and let you keep a little", how about: I will accept 1) a 30 day waiting period on handguns. 2) a training/competency requirement(administered by NRA). 3) Firearms owners ID card.
In exchange, you(antiz, feds, whatever) will accept that that ID card, since it proves competency, will be a CCW NATIONWIDE. In homes, on streets, in church, in gummint buildings, in your congresscritter's office, in bars, in cathouses, in swimming pools, on airlines, anywhere I choose to carry a gun is covered. No further restrictions once you get that card.
Other than that, I'm in favor of repeal of all existing restrictions. No government should have access to weapons denied to their citizens.
smile.gif


------------------
Shoot carefully... swifter...
 
IMHO, the problem with restrictions is that once started, there's no stopping point short of prohibition, it just takes longer to get there.
i'm far less worried about a youngster or a criminal buying a gun openly than i am about who gets to decide if i "QUALIFY"
I don't think a responsible store owner would sell to a child, unaccompanied by an adult , any more than i think they would sell to a known criminal or mental case.
the problem ,as i see it, is that in most or all of the cited cases for gun control, the weapons used were legally purchased. if they were legally purchased, then what effect did the law have?? NONE, EXCEPT IT MAY HAVE INCONVENIENCED A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN!
before 1934, it was legal and not terribly uncommon for people to have war souveneir machine guns, many had purchased obsolete artillery pieces that were fully operational.
darn few if any were ever used unlawfully.

point: lock up the ones who act irresponsibly. don't matter if its a gun, a car a knife or a bomb.personal responsibility for one's actions should be the rule. permits and licenses are primarily a way to separate you from money, and do not in and of themselves mean a person is competent or qualified.(witness the idiots on the hiway!)
i know this is too simplistic, but i'm tired of people assuming i'm a criminal or worse for wanting a gun ; and sick of the idea a "permit" will make it "ok". cmore
 
My attitude on this is basically "no restrictions", but I'd like to elaborate slightly.

I think I should clearly have the right to purchase anything my local police department can purchase, if they might need it then it follows that I might need it. And the police do not have a constitutional right that extends a millimeter beyond my own. I get kinda tired of people (even Rosie) saying "take all the guns away, only the police should have guns." If nobody else has one, why do the police need them? If they are not needed in today's society, let's BEGIN by ceasing to PAY people to carry them. LEOs disarm first, then we'll wait a few years to see how that works out before we talk more about it. Klinton thinks guns should be eliminated? I'd like to see the day when he announces to the public on nationwide TV that he has had every firearm removed from the White House complex, that is now a gun-free zone by Presidential proclamation, so please do not carry your pistol in here or we might get angry! Boy, sure fixed that, didn't I? Now we're all totally safe in the White House. Hint: don't hold your breath.

I also think our carry laws should be the same as police officers'-anybody can carry anywhere anytime. If the owner of a business doesn't like it, he should be able to demand that we leave his business (airlines for example), not to have us arrested. And he'd better not be allowing LEOs to carry on his premises either.

Full-auto? Why not? The only opposition I have to that is probably semantics, and has to do with production or sale of actual full auto weapons other than as deactivated war trophies and such, which I think should be prohibited, as they are just too dangerous to everybody including the user. What I think is actually being referred to here is select fire weapons, not full auto. An M-16 is select fire, a grease gun from WWII is full auto. And a real piece of ***p, too, btw.

"Cop-killer" bullets? Like a .308 for example? ANY rifle bullet is a "cop-killer" bullet, and if you believe that the people behind the effort to have such bullets outlawed didn't know that, you're dreaming. We almost lost the right to own rifle ammunition. Pistol ammo? Guess what? A cop-killer bullet as described is largely like any other bullet except it doesn't expand. At the same time that law was being debated, another group of grabbers was campaigning against bullets that *DO* expand (poster boy was Black Talons), since they were so devastating to the poor person hit. Hmmm. Let's see, if we can outlaw bullets that don't expand, then outlaw bullets that do expand, why, I believe we've finally achieved our goal!

Latest crapola I've heard is the concept that a ballistic vest is being classified in the same area as Class 3 weapons, LEOs only. Now we have a purely defensive piece of equipment, can't hurt a fly unless you drop it on him, prohibited to us? I don't want one, but how does anyone come up with that kinda crap. Klinton isn't a LEO, so he can't wear one? So let's see, cops can have "cop-killer" bullets to shoot through vests that we can't have, and can have vests that supposedly our ammunition can't shoot through. What might be the goal here?

Saturday night specials? Makes a good sound byte, but the last time I saw a law proposed to eliminate them (with great fanfare) what the proposal ACTUALLY prohibited when you read it was any handgun with a barrel length under X inches (I think it was 4 1/2), which made my Colt Python (4") a "Saturday night special" cheap POS junk to be prohibited. Suddenly the real goal is crystal clear again.

Training? A real good idea, but should not be in any way connected to the government or laws of any kind. Otherwise here is registration again. I owned and carried for over 20 years before I even HEARD of a formal training course, I don't see a problem with that. Should we get it? Absolutely. Should the government be allowed to REQUIRE it? Absolutely not. If they have the power to require it at all, they can require a 40,000 hour course with no more than 10 hours allowed in any one month. For the children. Do the math.

None at all, no infringement, no registration, no training requirement, no compromise. Simple as that. Anything else is another step down the wrong road.

Larry P.



[This message has been edited by Larry P. (edited June 22, 1999).]
 
Guess my experience here in Aussie has made me a bit wary of "reasonable restrictions" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one).

For example:
To get a new licence here (another restriction), you have to undergo a little "test" -- nothing strenuous, just a few questions along the lines of "Is it legal to shoot from the back of a moving vehicle at night on a public road?" -- that sort of thing. (The answer's "No", by the way :))

But now they (the police and guvmint) want a "training" course first. Fine, the SSAA and local gun clubs should be able to handle that. But, no -- the proposal is that the mandatory course be a joint effort between a private company and TAFE (Technical and Further Education), consisting of some 40 hours of theory, at a cost to each applicant of several hundred dollars. Remember, this is to own even an air-rifle!!

Since I no longer trust politicians or senior police administrators, the only "restrictions" should be:

* age-related (sorry, I don't want 12-year-olds running round with .45s of their own -- use 'em under direct adult supervision? Fine!!!)
* on those convicted of specified crimes (e.g. rape; armed robbery etc.) or of proven mental incompetence
* fully automatic firearms registered

B
 
I'm for restrictions too!

1) Restrict legislatures from infringing upon our rights to personal firearms.
2) No registration - not even for full auto.
3) No age restrictions. If my six-year old owns a .22, he and the .22 are MY responsiblities as his parent.
4) Screw up and hurt someone or damage something? You pay (not just dollars, but appropriate punishment).

5) Non-citizens have no RKBA? Maybe? (Exceptions made for sporting event participants and long-term resident aliens.)

6) Persons charged with, or under indictment for or on parole (or bail) for a crime of violence, robbery, or rape, can not carry off his property. (Screw up? Jail time?) (I might be willing to add other predatory crimes to this list.)

(Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 23, 1999).]
 
Forgive Bruce, for he was raised in a foreign land, and their ways are strange. :)

When I was 12 I was "running around" with a 20 gauge Browning Auto 5 shotgun. I also ran around with a .22 rifle and a .177 pellet gun. I managed to avoid shooting anybody somehow. I kept the guns in my room, and had ammo. Fear of the old man was much greater than the urge to take the guns out without any supervision.

Full-autos registered? For heaven's sake, why? Do you like black markets? Soldiers returning from every war from WWI through the Korean police action brought home real machine guns, not the patsy, mouse-gun, select-fire battle rifles of recent years; BARs, Maxims, etc, all came home by thousands and most were never registered. And whaddaya know, they weren't used in crime, either.

The crime wave of the 20s ended with the repeal of prohibition, and the NFA of '34 came after the crimespree ended. I wonder if there's any way we can learn from that and apply it today's gang wars...

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
 
I noted someone mentioned restricting non-citizens. If you study the political theory behind the Bill of Rights, you will see a problem with this. The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of the rights of man-everyone, everywhere. It is not a grant by the US government to US citizens. If you believe in the philosophical underpinnings of our system then you can't do this. Of course, if you don't believe in the philosophy of our system, you can use government force to do whatever you please. Just don't come crying when it's done to you by government force.
 
Easy, Spartacus. Look at the question marks.

You might want to think twice before you use that question to imply I don't believe in the Bill of Rights, OK?

I believe our intent is pretty similar but here is my rationale behind my question.

1) If a plane-load of Iraqis landed in America on a jihad against us, I would hate to think anyone would say they have every right to come into America armed. My problem is that I don't know how to "restrict" this behavior if they say they are only exercising their Second Amendment rights and refuse to clarify their real-world intent.

2) Also, some non-citizens may have a completely different approach to "justice" than we do.

Many years ago, the wife of an American soldier was stabbed repeatedly (she died almost immediately) because she dared step up to the door of a public bus before all the men got on the bus. She didn't "cut" the line, she just innocently tried to get on the bus. In that area of Turkey, at that time, a woman getting on a bus before a man was an insult "requiring" deadly force.

I believe it may be appropriate to ensure newcomers to America become familiar with our culture before being permitted to carry firearms.

3) I have the same problem you have. Non-citizens should have most of the same rights as citizens, but not in all areas (e.g. non-citizens can't become President, etc.)

4) To answer your note in the same tenor:

a) I am not a Constitutional scholar but, within my uneducated civilian abilities, I have studied at least parts of the Bill of Rights.

b) The Bill of Rights is an addendum to the Constitution. Read the Constitution for a more complete explanation of certain restrictions already in force pertaining to non-citizens.

c) Sleep easy. I promise not to come crying to you about much of anything.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 24, 1999).]
 
It took more than 200 years to screw this up.
I hope it takes a lot less time to make it right!
What else can I say,....
Hank
 
Acceptable restriction: you are not allowed to unreasonably harm or threaten anyone. Doesn't matter whether it's with a gun, fist, baseball bat, propane tank, etc. Gee, we already have laws for that!

Acceptable restriction: locations where use of a gun for reasonable defense would likely cause substantially greater harm than good. Example: oil refinery, chemical factory, or any other place likely to go BOOM in a big way if a shot is fired.
 
"Acceptable restriction" to me would mean prosecuting anyone who sold a firearm to someone who appeared intoxicated or otherwise chemically influenced, or who was of too young an age to understand safe firearms practice. Provided these provisions were met, I think one should be able to walk into a store and buy an M16, Mac-11, M-79 or BAR in a matter of minutes- definitely no longer than any other age-controlled product, and in perhaps less time, if one had cash, than it might take to buy a bottle of vodka. (After all, even though I see no evidence anywhere that it is the government's right to restrict my access to hard liquor, my right to own it is not specifically acknowledged, as is my right to own a militarily-capable arm.)

It is the behavior, not the accessory, that is at fault. This has always been the case, and will always be the case.
 
Interesting that you should mention buying alcohol and buying full-auto firearms. The laws regarding full-auto firearms, and short-barreled shotguns, was a response to gang activity during Prohibition. Of course, it turned out that the firearms weren't the problem; the problem was prohibition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top