Where do you draw the line & why?

I see your point about the NRA. Apathy tends to rule and agendas are pushed by those who have acquired power in that organization.

My experience with the education system runs counter to yours. Heck, they have a competition on TV where adults go mano a mano against 5th graders. I haven't watched the show, but I know where I'd place my bet. I have watched Jay Leno with his "Jay Walking" bit. You very well might argue that they are a product of that education system. I'll disagree and say people are apathetic in general and don't care what happened in Lexington and forgot or never learned in the first place. I think that's sad, but hardly the fault of the education system. Could it be better? Sure, all organizations have their faults. Inefficiency and waste sap that system and the bigger the district the bigger the waste and corruption.

I'd rather my son be taught conflict resolution skills at school. I'll handle self defense myself (and he'll take it off campus if necessary). I've never heard of the "Parent's Bill of Rights". I wonder if that's a state thing.
 
Slideman, I remain uncertain of the degree to which most of your post answers directly what arms are protected by the Second Amendment, insofar as the line is merely not drawn before the possession of automatic weapons. However, is surely speaks to the unspoken half of my question, to wit, the arms of the government that the people are to balance. It is with that in mind that I am responding.

I think the image of the U.S. as a nation without a standing military, concerned only with its own affairs is a superb one. However, I do not see that as possible, for the same reason that a Poland without a standing army, sitting between Russia (which soon became the Soviet Union) and an early-to-mid 20th Century Germany is a poor idea. The oceans that once sufficed to protect North America have been dramatically shrunk by technological progress. The image of an America without a standing army in the midst of a post-Blitzkreig era, in the midst of an era where our U.S. Army Rangers can be deployed anywhere on the globe within 18 hours is a vision of America not long for this earth.

I can understand a degree of revulsion at the Military-Industrial Complex and at a standing Army. However, if we think that they are bad, I suggest we try not having them. (It's hard to come up with examples of such countries, because their names change so frequently on the map). Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and it is firepower we need to defend the nation in an era of conscription.

I think in an era of conscription, local and regional militias have naturally been displaced by the evolutionary forces of warfare to lead to national armies. They cannot, and have not, defend/defended their practices, which have gone out of fashion.

I can't think of any freedom-fighters attacking the U.S. right now. I don't think the Taliban can honestly be called freedom fighters in light of the country they ran, with a similar prescription for Sunni and Shiite militas, as well as Somalians or Yugoslavians.

In other words, at this point, I feel I have failed to see how your admittedly out-of-the-box solution to my problem of balancing the power of the Federal Government by means of arming the populace would adequately address the requisite balancing of the power of other nations, and it seems a cure worse than the disease. Perhaps you have a different take on international affairs.

Nonetheless, I can agree with part of your point, but it seems you believe that militias are specific organizations? What line would you draw for the individual not a member of the Montana Milita and her ilk?
 
I personally think that all weapons should be made available to the public. I seriously doubt that a T-63 tank is going to be rolling bown on capitol hill or an M270 MRLS is going to be pointed at Kaliforn... wait let me think on that one... :D But seriously, full automatic should be available to those who can afford it and justify buying them. M60's won't be showing up on the streets in open carry b/c the pants haven't reached that kind of baggy stage yet. It's easier to hide a MAC-10 or micro-uzi in normal street punk wear than say a SCAR or M4. And they are more accessable via black market to gangsters/punks than they are to citizens who abide by the law. Black market doesn't care what the law says, that's why they are there: to provide illegal/stolen goods. SO why short change us against criminals? A micro-uzi or Glock 18 with 30 round mags would definitely come in handy in a multiple BG home defense situation

O/T here but when did people start calling mags "clips?"
 
All states have a"Parents Bill of Rights" the reason you haven't heard of it is the schools don't want you to use what it says. It states how much say you have in what is being taught in the schools. You also have the right to approve attendance to any guest speakers, you have the right to see any surveys that they want your child to fill out. Talking out problems is great when you can but sometimes you just can't, example one child walking down the hall punches your child and readys to punch again, either your child gets beat up or defends him self and suppended as well as the aggressor.
 
Weedwacker, when you say all weapons, you include all weapons, including Biosaftey Level 4 agents (e.g. ebolavirus genus & ilk)? (You mentioned automatic weapons, and said all weapons, but there is clearly a difference). At which point do you draw the line, if at all? (Not before autos, clearly).

Most people familiar with guns shun the phrase "clip" used improperly. The media seems to have picked it up, I'm willing to reckon around 1994, with the AWB & the limitations on "clip" capacity. Some discussed the issue here, if it's of interest. (The article mentions "clips").
 
Tony, I think your method is productive, but the marginal impact of your effort with respect to impact is rapidly diminishing. Your method may reach 90%, 95%, 99% of the population, but it can never reach everyone, not in the least due to mental insanity disrupting your efforts for some people. My concern is even at its height, your method still does not allow for the safe handling of, at an extreme, nuclear weapons by everyone. By the example of that extreme, it is clear that we need to draw the line somewhere, even if your method is adopted by everyone.

I'll also take issue with this:
The concern should be about how to get society back to being WE minded instead of ME minded.
Click to expand...

My view is actually diametrically opposed to your own. I think it is the rise of group politics and group rights within politics and jurisprudence that is the cause of many of the nation's troubles, including crimes involving guns. America's success story is the success story of the individual. In America, the point, however much we might stray from it at times, is that it does not matter who your family is, who your father was, where you came from, or what your skin color is. You choose your family, you choose your identity.

It is with and within that realization that the individual is recognized as an individual. It is only in being recognized as an individual, I posit, that one can take responsibility for themselves. So long as you're a member of a dispossessed class, you will blame what you have/haven't done on the class, or your surroundings, or your race.

Any man's steps toward liberty must be on his own and for himself.

That said, I think your method is good, I merely disagree with why. The teaching of self-responsibility is certainly a step to move "the line" (of non-suicidal liberties) forward, even if it (I feel) does not move the line all the way to the extreme.
 
Weedwacker, when you say all weapons, you include all weapons, including Biosaftey Level 4 agents (e.g. ebolavirus genus & ilk)? (You mentioned automatic weapons, and said all weapons, but there is clearly a difference). At which point do you draw the line, if at all? (Not before autos, clearly).
Click to expand...

I assumed since this was a firearms forum we would all think gunpowder and slugs. Chemical reagents and bioweapons are a completely different situation. I place C4 and other complex explosive devices using products other than gunpowder in a different category than firearms (note: this includes grenades)
 
I asked only because many people say that the right "to bear arms" should not be infringed, period. I never know what they mean, as most reasonable people draw the line somewhere, be it at machine guns, assault weapons, explosives, etc. I feel that even the most extreme, rational libertarian must draw the line before nuclear weapons and that the gun debate is not about whether there is a line, but rather where the line is.
 
The teaching of self-responsibility is certainly a step to move "the line" (of non-suicidal liberties) forward, even if it (I feel) does not move the line all the way to the extreme.
Click to expand...

How is that accomplished en mass? I'm afraid we (and especially our children) are a product of "easy" society. Things are not gained through hard work, but through "entitlement". Drive by the local high school. I'm amazed at what 16 year olds drive. I wonder how many of those kids are actually working to pay for their ride. We are spoiled from the beginning of our lives, and that kind of value (or lack of) is pretty hard to overcome. Keep maxing out those credit cards...China will aways buy our debt, right?
 
Hmmm....by that logic (which seems sound) I can see no more direct descendant to the militiaman's musket than the AR-15, or AK-47, or FAL, or any other "assault rifle."

Even some individual (rather than crew-served) machineguns would seem to fit the bill...such as the M249.
 
Your pretty close...but one of the stipulations was it has to be in common use at the time...not too many people sell/own 249's...nice try tho!...lol

They did also mention government having the right (set by previous rulings) that they may regulate arms to a degree. Examples given were: not allowed while intoxicated, fellons, in churches or polling places...ect.

you really have to read the whole thing to get an idea of where they stand...it all boils down to "interpretations"
 
Junkpile we are not that far apart. The We I refer to is indivuals looking out for each other in a community, the Me is the indivual who cares for nothing but themself, every one else be damned. The later is destructive to Liberty of all, because when one does not use restraint in thier actions, then those who want power can convince those who are afraid to give away thier liberty for security. Teaching that we do have a duty towards one another, we should respect one another, then the power hungery lose and Liberty wins.
 
I follow, Tony, rational individualism vs. short-sighted or irrational individualism. I believe I agree with you after clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top