What gun control would you actually support?

[bullseye]

He didn't say required. However, in a galaxy far far away, in a time far before we were born... people had their shit together and would self regulate certain aspects of commerce. You can see it today when you buy a car and the salesman shows you where the windshield wiper control is.

It wouldn't have to be regulated, because the seller would show you as a courtesy, and a matter of service. The purchaser, as a conscientious person wouldask for it if it wasn't offered, or would find someone with the knowledge to show them the ropes.

No .gov needed or welcome.

Exactly, you come into my store to purchase a firearm. You don't point the muzzle at me, keep your finger off the trigger, refuse to handle firearm if handed unchecked and am able able to tell the difference between a 30-06 and a 308 or 38 and 357. There are many things in life we all have a way of knowing whether or not another person is a knowing individual or not, it doesn't take a license.
On another note, since the government and the 50 states ( or is it 57 ) have damn near tried every law in the world and have seen they do nothing to prevent crime or stop criminals from obtaining firearms, why not just give the true meaning our forefathers intended on the implementation of the right to bear arms a fair shake and let open carry, no licensing, no permits of guns a fair chance and lets see what effect that has on everyday life. I honestly believe crime will plummet and society would become a much more civil place. This includes everything from 50 cal machine guns right down to mouseguns. Think of the money saved when you can eliminate the ATF and actually have Attorney generals who focus on eliminating crime, less paperwork, and the Canton police dept. who no longer has to worry about individuals who observe and follow the laws.

 

[william_munny]

In terms of personal liberties, gun ownership should line up with the espoused liberal principles. Essentially anyone should be free on a personal level to do what they wish provided it harms no one else, right? Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. Why not gun ownership?

Here's the answer. Liberalism is about control. It's about being able to get together collectively and mandate societal norms. They're not anti-gun. They're anti-descent. In fact, they're probably the most pro-gun group that ever existed. Provided those guns are weilded by the enforcers who answer to the collective, and not the individuals.

Don't pay your progressive liberal tax? Guys with guns show up and take your stuff.
You're kid sets up a lemonade stand without applying to the proper authorities? Guys with guns show up and shut it down.
Have an argument with someone? Guys with guns will show up and arrest / mediate the situation.

Liberalism is about guns. Lots of guns.

"Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The Communist party must control the guns." -- Mao Tse Tung

 

[n1zfg]

zbrod,

There are plenty of "liberal" ideals that I identify with as well. In fact, I often think of myself as a liberal in the classical sense. That is the kind of liberal that existed before the collectivist types (a.k.a. socialists) started calling themselves liberal to make themselves sound good.

Nowadays, for me, I do the labels "individualist" and "libertarian".


I swear, sometimes I think "The Road To Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek should be required reading.

 

[Billsail]

This discussion should be included in the "Epic Threads", thread. (if it hasn't already) Not because it's a "trainwreck", but because of it's educational and inspirational value. I pray the non-believers read it cover to cover!

 

[fubar]

Second amendment ? How about Article 1 of the Constitution ? Article 1 section 8 :

" The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"Letters of Marque"

Can someone tell me this doesn't mean the .gov expects me (or my company) to keep an armed warship up & running ?

Not trying to be cute here - those words are there for a reason.

 

[jude061]

Second amendment ? How about Article 1 of the Constitution ? Article 1 section 8 :

" The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"Letters of Marque"

Can someone tell me this doesn't mean the .gov expects me (or my company) to keep an armed warship up & running ?

Not trying to be cute here - those words are there for a reason.

This isn't an expectation by the government on the people. It is one of the enumerated powers of the central government; that is, it is one of the listed powers that the central government held. it isn't an expectation on the people, rather it is a limit on what powers congress has.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal were generally not used to comandeer private vessels. They were more like a permit for a vessel (most vessels maintained a complement of guns to ward of pirates and cannibals) to engage in privateering in the absence of a standing navy. Even through the War of 1812, the United States Navy wasn't any force to be rekoned with WRT size, so it supplemented it's numbers with privatized warships. Kind of like a seagoing militia. Thus, generally, a ship captain hoping to make a profit from plundering (during early wars, commerce nearly ceased) could request a LOMR from congress.

Ultimately, as has likely been said before, the constitution did not _grant_ congress power. It limited what power congress was allowed to have. Issuing LOMR, like declaring war, was a power the PEOPLE specifically gave to congress rather than the states. So it wasn't an expectation. However, WRT this thread, had the framers NOT intended private citizens to maintain arms, they wouldn't need to include this particular power.

Currently, IIRC, privateering is prohibited under international law (the Paris Declaration or something to that effect in the 1850s, i think). though the power was never relegated, the US abides by the declaration. I've heard that Privateering is considered a war crime now, but someone with more international relations knowledge than I might be able to correct me.

 

[JimB]

makes me feel good this thread wasn't started by a troll with 348

replies.

JimB????????????????????

 

[jude061]

zbrod, two articles to consider re discriminatory gun control policies. Ironic how a progressive could support gun control...

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/109mar.pdf

http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog

 

[fubar]

....... However, WRT this thread, had the framers NOT intended private citizens to maintain arms, they wouldn't need to include this particular power.

A private warship is a bit like a private tank , artillery battery or armed aircraft. Gives a little perspective while we argue about whether or not we should restrict handguns.

 

[Mr_Irritating]

If someone has commited a crime which is so horrible that they can't be trusted to own a gun then they also cannot be trusted to be set free in society. Because, as everyone is well aware, criminals don't NEED guns to harm the innocent, rob old ladies, kidnapp children or rape women.

We, as honest, decent individuals do, however, have the right to incredibly powerful weapons to defend ourselves. Being an honest, decent person is not something that is proven. The opposite is only true. People prove to be dishonest and dangerous. It is at that point that they lose their place in society and should be bannishes. Because, once they have proven themselves so untrustworthy that they should not own a gun, they should not be allowed to be around anyone, period.

Other than that, gun control means pointing it in a safe direction and treating every gun as if it were loaded.

 

[Mass-diver]

If someone has commited a crime which is so horrible that they can't be trusted to own a gun then they also cannot be trusted to be set free in society. Because, as everyone is well aware, criminals don't NEED guns to harm the innocent, rob old ladies, kidnapp children or rape women.

We, as honest, decent individuals do, however, have the right to incredibly powerful weapons to defend ourselves. Being an honest, decent person is not something that is proven. The opposite is only true. People prove to be dishonest and dangerous. It is at that point that they lose their place in society and should be bannishes. Because, once they have proven themselves so untrustworthy that they should not own a gun, they should not be allowed to be around anyone, period.

Other than that, gun control means pointing it in a safe direction and treating every gun as if it were loaded.

Nice. +1

 

[caboose84]

Zbrod, in post 284 you stated you would answer your own question (the reason for this thread) but you would take a few posts to do so.

You've added 5 rather defensive and self justifying posts since, but you still haven't answered the question. Please do.

 

[swampy]

Mandatory marksmanship programs annually for all students beginning in 7th grade. Gunsmithing taught in trade schools. Every home must have at least one hand gun, one shotgun, and one centerfire rifle plus ammunition for each. Any legislator, mayor, governor or president that proposes any law that restricts any rights recognized in the bill of rights shall be immediately disqualified from holding elected or appointed government office. The police cannot have any firearms or ammunition that the general public cannot own.

 

[pernox]

Lots of folks had a liberal mindset when they were young and idyllic. A great many grew out of that as they gained wealth and continually found it denied them by their governing bodies. They shelved the idea of a Utopia free of violence when they first held their child in their arms and vowed to their maker to protect him or her, by any means necessary. They examined more closely the idea of working for a society that held love for itself and each member, and looked instead to their family and said; "Everything I do, I do for my family. While I will tread lightly so as not to infringe on the Liberty of others, I will NOT have my own Liberty infringed for the good of another man." They realized this after accepting that while all men are created equal, they are no longer equal as they reach adulthood. Choices are made, careers are chosen, families are built, and every fork in the road is and should be a personal decision - NOT one that is determined, influenced, or mandated by another person or group.

I will give the OP some credit here; after a baiting and poorly constructed original question, he has come forward to forthrightly admit that he hasn't formed all his ideas, and lacks sufficient knowledge to do so. Most people throw the blinds up and walk away after running the gamut with a bunch of logical folk that are sick of pandering to the sheep - but this one seems to be absorbing what we're saying. In time, perhaps we have an ally if he looks at things through the lens of Freedom rather than with rose colored Great Society glasses. One can only hope, because the fewer enemies of Liberty there are, the closer we get to solving this mess without a significant amount of bloodshed.

 

[Fixxah]

Maybe we can take her shooting and perhaps this gun control nonsense will be clearer with a little trigger time on a few different firearms.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[PaulD]

Mandatory.......... programs annually for all students beginning in 7th grade. .......... Every home must have at least one .......................................Any legislator, mayor, governor or president that proposes any law that restricts any rights........................shall be immediately disqualified from holding elected or appointed government office.....................

.........................................................

 

[Mark from MA]

To all of you that support mandatory anything! You are the reason that cause to exist, all these F*** UP GUN LAWS.

You have allowed the power grabbing a**h***s, to slowly exert thier will upon the rest of us.

This...

Give them an inch and they will take a mile......only a**h***s support any form of gun control or restriction of freedoms.

 

[Blitz1]

OK I skipped ahead. We can tell You everything you want or don't want on to read the internet Zbrod.

What I'll say is come to a shoot, maybe you can find someone that will take you as a guest.

I will personally guarantee that you will meet some of the best people you've ever met in your life. Once you meet these people you will most likely rethink a lot of things.

There you go. You can continue to debate something that you'll never win here or you can come out and actually meet us.

It's up to you.

 

[Bob P]

zbrod,

First as to the personal attacks, I try to avoid that, though you must understand that when someone tells me they have an "inner socialist," it sounds no different to me than someone talking about "the filthy Irish." It's insulting, it reflects very poorly on your character and I think people should be told this and shunned in public for expressing such offensive viewpoints. They/you are free to have them of course, I believe that too, but you are not free from the insult coming your way for doing so.

Second, as to the various limits on "arms", you are missing the problem...

WHO DECIDES this limit? If you give government the power to make that decision, it will ratchet it down (often slowly so no one notices, and often with the complicit propaganda and social programming of the elite who want to see "the masses" disarmed), to the point where "the people" no longer present a threat to the government.

I do not advocate violence to bring about political change, but the historical reality is that without the threat of violence as the "bluff" to force government to respect the limits imposed upon them in the Constitution, they will abuse their power.

Once you understand the brutal reality that politics and war are just points on a continuous spectrum, you _should_ better understand that 2A must be an absolute prohibition on government deciding what arms we may have.

As to nukes, as far as I am concerned, given the danger of even handling them, the question is not whether government or civilians should have them, but whether anyone should be permitted to have them. It's a waste of time to debate civilian vs government, it's a binary question as pointed out previously, they can be had by people with bad intentions today and it will only get easier with time.

The issue of violence is always one of the "people" doing violent things. Merely handling radioactive material without taking great precautions is an act of violence on those around you which should be punished extremely harshly. Regulating the materials becomes secondary when you focus on the real problem - people.

Tanks, C4, rocket launchers, grenades - these are all power tools - nothing special needs to be done. Bad people that cannot be trusted with power tools (as evidenced by their committing violent crime) should be tried, convicted and kept out of circulation until they can demonstrate they are no longer bad people and executed if they commit a crime sufficient to demonstrate they are beyond rehabilitation.

But the Irish ARE filthy.


As to the thread: the intent of the 2A is to protect the right of the citizens of this nation to be just as well armed as any and all enemies, foreign and domestic, they might encounter. It's not just limited to guns. Yes, if I could afford a nuke, the 2A protects my right to own one. Gun control is an attack on liberty. Period.

The Bill of Rights was written by a radical revolutionary & is anti-Federalist. What else would you EXPECT it to mean?

 

[JRyan]

But the Irish ARE filthy.


As to the thread: the intent of the 2A is to protect the right of the citizens of this nation to be just as well armed as any and all enemies, foreign and domestic, they might encounter. It's not just limited to guns. Yes, if I could afford a nuke, the 2A protects my right to own one. Gun control is an attack on liberty. Period.

The Bill of Rights was written by a radical revolutionary & is anti-Federalist. What else would you EXPECT it to mean?

Aside from the part about me being filthy (I shower ever week whether I need it or not!) this ^^^.

 

[cekim]

But the Irish ARE filthy.

We prefer the term "Filth-abled."

 

[Fixxah]

We prefer the term "Filth-abled."

All of them?

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[Blitz1]

The op should respond to my post. He better have big ti+'s.

The bog trotters (thanks Timber ynf) have nothing to do with this.

 

[cekim]

All of them?

What's the point of a stereotype if you don't lump everyone in?

 

[Blitz1]

What's the point of a stereotype if you don't lump everyone in?

You're right Ginger.

 

[JoeT]

In fairness, I think we should give this guy a break...

I'll use my personal experience for point of reference.

I grew up in a union house, dad was a teamster (I could tell stories about being a teamster's kid, and the shit I saw while my father walked the picket line every year around Christmas). In addition to being brought up in a union house, we're Irish (by the grace of God). Being born in the late 60's and growing up in the 70's, I thought the Kennedys shit gold. I knew nothing about politics, and as a kid certainly didn't have my own views. I believed what my parents believed, and their parents believed, and all their Irish Catholic union friends believed.

I'll admit it, at 18 or 20 I actually voted for Ted Kennedy .

I went off to college to save the world. . . despite being an "independent", I was a voting Democrat. I voted that way through college, and for a few years after college. Even in the 80's colleges were teaching you what to think. I was voting what I was "told to believe"

At 21 I moved to another state where I knew nobody (job opportunity). Because I knew nobody, I picked up a few hobbies that I could do by myself (no, not that ). One of the hobbies was shooting. I grew up with guns in the house, but the guns were my fathers...something he used 1 week a year to bond with his brothers to knock down some pheasants, I grew up thinking if I touched his guns I'd loose and arm, oh that, and that the only reason to own pistols was to kill someone...sadly, Dad was a FUDD

So I start shooting a few times a week at a local range... and met a few people there that had vastly different opinions than those I was exposed to growing up. Opinions that when I thought about it, actually made sense to me. Additionally, I wasn't an 21 year old college kid anymore. . . .I was now a"businessman". The more I got into the day to day runnings of a business, the more I saw the our government was "stealing". It wasn't called theft, it was called "taxes" and "mandates" and "regulations"....

Then I had a couple employees that would explain to me how they were "beating the system" (like living in government housing with their baby momma , not paying anything... while driving in cars with payments larger than my rent- one guy who would boast about working the system was driving a 911 cabriolet). All while paying 28-30% of my income to the government, oh and I payed an additional 1% to the city for the "privilege" of living in the city limits of the shithole that is Philadelphia. I was struggling, and these people were living large.


It doesn't happen overnight. . . The OP is already questioning some of his beliefs. Instead of taunting and harassing him, help him with some of his uncertainties. Even if it's just the 2A that he comes over to the other side, it's a step. . . .and potentially one more on our side on the issue of gun control. He's not covering his ears saying "I can't hear you" like many, he's open to learning and seeing the other side. Today it's the Second Amendment, maybe he'll question govenrment spending next. . .

There's an old expression....

"If you're 20 and not a Democrat, you have no heart, if you're 40 and not a republican, you have no brain"***




*** in the interest of honestly, I'm still an "independent". I lean very right on fiscal issues but fail to follow the republican party lines on a lot of social issues

 

[CosmicIrony]

All any society can do is realize that freedom comes with risk, and that you should be prepared to defend yourself.

To me, this is the essential liberal position: people should be free, but with freedom comes risk and responsibility. The is nothing anti-liberal about accountability.

 

[CosmicIrony]

Yes, if I could afford a nuke, the 2A protects my right to own one.

One problem with that is the Bin Laden could have easily afforded a nuke - and he'd have used it on us. Being able to bring someone to justice after they've killed a million people is too late. So I personally draw the line somewhere before nukes.

 

[EddieCoyle]

B
The Bill of Rights was written by a radical revolutionary & is anti-Federalist. What else would you EXPECT it to mean?

I don't bring up the Constitution when I'm arguing with a liberal about gun control. They wipe their ass on it by calling it a 'living document'.

Once someone has that attitude, the Constitution doesn't mean anything.

 

[Bob P]

One problem with that is the Bin Laden could have easily afforded a nuke - and he'd have used it on us. Being able to bring someone to justice after they've killed a million people is too late. So I personally draw the line somewhere before nukes.

Straw man

First, Bin Laden isn't an American so the example is moot


You can't bubble-wrap the world. Hitlers happen. Stalins and Bin Ladens happen. As do mass murderers, muggers, rapists & the guy that gets pissed off at his wife and kills her in a fit of rage. Outlawing weapons or a class of weapons aren't going to change that.

So long as humans remain human you can NOT prevent crime by removing the tools to commit them with. Humans are adaptable - they'll find a tool. The best you can do is give the people the ability to protect themselves, respond to the crimes quickly when they happen and react severely to prevent recidivism.