Common Sense Gun Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Agree to disagree. Free speech is free speech, imo. I think actions are what matter not words. Especially when the majority of the time that “hate” speech is just hot air. [/quote]
I get this is a hypothetical, and I could sit here and rip it apart all day too. The point of the exercise though, is to try and establish a framework for protecting rights, that the leftists will agree to, and we can build with.

So please, point out the short comings, but in addition to that, please offer a remedy beyond “shall not be infringed”.
[/quote]

This is the problem in and of itself though Beans. They are gun grabbers, which means they will use this as a stepping stone to… grab guns. Give an inch they’ll take a mile sort of thing.

You and I are rational and I would be willing to compromise, but you said it, our opponents run off emotions.

Not to derail, I’ll make my point, but take healthcare for example. Many people believe Obamacare is just the first step to single payer. Some even believe that was the entire point of the ACA. I don’t see how this will be any different, do you?

There are a lot of issues I personally would be willing to compromise on if both sides were rational, but at least one of the side is usually not in every single one of them. So the one willing to compromise becomes the one that ultimately losses.

I do get what you are trying to do I just don’t see it working. It’s like playing just the tip…

22

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t support discrimination even if it makes life easier for me. [/quote]

Sigh, lol. Neither do I. See above.
[/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply that you did.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
by millisecond maybe… just nitpicking though. [/quote]

This plays into the entire gun debate as a whole. A trained person will be more deadly with a pump and 5 shells of 9 shot than an untrained person with a 100 round drum on an AR.

Why is a pistol grip an evil AW add on? A trained person will be more effective with a non-pistol gripped rifle than an untrained loony with an AK.

That is the point. We need to get into function over form. A pump requires two movements by the shooter, where a semi takes one, a trigger pull. Skill levels being equal the pump will take more time to fire than a semi. That is why you see over/unders and semi’s on the trap field, not to mention no fucking pistol grips, lol. [/quote]

Here is my issue, like every other thing Congress does, one side will have their expert and the other side will have theirs. In the end what is banned and what is not will be based on arbitrary terminology and backroom deals. It won’t be any different or better than it is now, imo.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How will we pay for this if said ex-felon can’t afford to cover the cost of transportation? They just aren’t allowed to go to the range? [/quote]

Correct. Just because he is a felon doesn’t me she gets shotgun Welfare.

If I can’t afford it, I can’t go to the range. Same rules apply to the felon.
[/quote]

Come on Beans, of course there will be shotgun welfare. The bleeding hearts will talk about how this law is unfair to ______(insert ethnicity here) felons and we need to subsidize their range fees and transportation cost.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And this law won’t be ignored? [/quote]

By criminals, obviously. [/quote]

And Judges apparently.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think you’re going to get enough “shall issue” into the law. To pass it would have to be even more restrictive, imo. [/quote]

Well, we have to have our framework in place before we worry about where they will try and take their mile. [/quote]

I suppose.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that function is better than look, but I don’t see how that will make banning harder? [/quote]

Because bans (AWB being the focus here) as of now are based on looks, with the implication it is on function.

I can have a .308, but put a fucking bayonet LUG on it, not even the actual blade, just a damn lug, I’m going to prison.

Adjustable stock? God forbid your wife’s arms are shorter than yours, prison.

Flash Suppressor? Who cares if it works, prison.

Threaded barrel. Not what’s on the threads, just that threads are there, prison.

Now… function… that is where we win. Feelings don’t determine function, facts do.

I’ve heard “ban 50 cals”. Why? Because they are big and black (I swear liberals are racist as shit) and make a loud boom. But if you look at function: to shoot things far away with a large round. Gun has an ass load of kick, is heavy as fuck, impossible to conceal, and no one that isn’t trained for HOURS and HOURS on the thing is going to hit a person at 200 yards, let alone the hundreds it is made to shoot, its function. So because of its function, you need someone to spend a couple grand on the gun, I’ve seen them in the $12k range, couple more on an optic (that is going to get destroyed due ot the back and forth recoil, so double the optic costs), and big money on ammo to train on the gun, let alone dues to join a club to learn how to use it. The 4 people on Earth willing to go through all this with the intent to harm people doesn’t make sense to ban the weapon for. 9999 time out of 10000 that person will just steal a pistol and shoot who they want to.

See what I mean, once you force the topic onto function the “we should ban that” becomes a different rifle, and then you start again, until all you’re left with is the statist saying “we should just ban all guns” which is very unlikely to pass.

Focus on function slows the slow creep towards confiscation in the non-free states.
[/quote]

The issue of who determines what functions are and are not allowed still exists. You can find any “expert” to argue about any accessory. You can find any expert to argue against any caliber, any style of weapon, etc… A fold-able stock so your wife can use it too = easier to conceal, banned. Silencer, lol, banned.

Give an inch, they’ll take a mile.

23

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I do get what you are trying to do I just don’t see it working. It’s like playing just the tip…[/quote]

That is why it needs to be done, and the cries of “shall not be infringed” go on deaf ears.

We have got to eliminate the slippery slope, and do it sooner rather than later.

The right will have the House for awhile, no doubt, but the Senate and POTUS will be Dem for a long time coming, based on demographics and the limp attempt of the GOP to actually get quality candidates or do anything but fail ultra hard in the culture war.

And like the Good Dr mentioned, SCOTUS judges die and are replaced.

We, in short, are fucked. If Heller holds up half as well as Wade has then I feel relatively okay there will be a couple free states in the union, however we’re looking at entire generations of blue here man…

24

I apologize for attempting to turn this into a 2nd amendment debate in advance, but I asked this question to CountingBeans in that “On Government” thread and I want a response-

What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” mean? And how does it relate to the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment that everyone focuses on?

25

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The 4 people on Earth willing to go through all this with the intent to harm people doesn’t make sense to ban the weapon for. 9999 time out of 10000
[/quote]

And when those 4 people actually do it, what will happen? Congressman fucknuts from MD will get on the floor and call for stricter gun control and the flood gates will have already been opened.

There are just some issue you have to stand firm on and to me this is one of them.

26

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Here is my issue, like every other thing Congress does, one side will have their expert and the other side will have theirs. In the end what is banned and what is not will be based on arbitrary terminology and backroom deals. It won’t be any different or better than it is now, imo. [/quote]

Re-read my OP. Nothing is banned. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING needs to be covered by a level of license.

Each class of license requires training (regulated) to maintain.

Not banned, just reclassed into a different license class.

No banning here.

27

[quote]magick wrote:
I apologize for attempting to turn this into a 2nd amendment debate in advance, but I asked this question to CountingBeans in that “On Government” thread and I want a response-

What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” mean? And how does it relate to the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment that everyone focuses on?[/quote]

Will answer over there. Give me a min.

28

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Re-read my OP. Nothing is banned. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING needs to be covered by a level of license.

Each class of license requires training (regulated) to maintain.
[/quote]

I agree that training is what “regulated” means, in the context of the Second Amendment; however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

From Wikipedia(because it’s easiest):

[quote]There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.

One version was passed by the Congress,[24][25][26][27][28]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]

-When there’s any debate as to the meaning of a law, should a free country not go with the meaning approved by the entity closest to the people(the states)?

29

[quote]NickViar wrote:
however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about dealing with leftist. Have you seen Zep post on this board?

30

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about dealing with leftist. Have you seen Zep post on this board?[/quote]

Lol, exactly why I’m extremely hesitant to compromise…

31

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about dealing with leftist. Have you seen Zep post on this board?[/quote]

Lol, exactly why I’m extremely hesitant to compromise…[/quote]

No I get that, but removing the option to ban anything, through forcing classification licensing is an improvement for a lot of states.

Trust me, in real life I’d be just as hesitant to compromise too.

32

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about dealing with leftist. Have you seen Zep post on this board?[/quote]

Lol, exactly why I’m extremely hesitant to compromise…[/quote]

No I get that, but removing the option to ban anything, through forcing classification licensing is an improvement for a lot of states.

Trust me, in real life I’d be just as hesitant to compromise too.
[/quote]

You are probably right about this being an improvement. At least over MD laws.

33

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
however, that training need not be approved by the government(especially the federal government).

[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about dealing with leftist. Have you seen Zep post on this board?[/quote]

Lol, exactly why I’m extremely hesitant to compromise…[/quote]

No I get that, but removing the option to ban anything, through forcing classification licensing is an improvement for a lot of states.

Trust me, in real life I’d be just as hesitant to compromise too.
[/quote]

You are probably right about this being an improvement. At least over MD laws. [/quote]

MA, NY & CA for sure as well, I believe NJ for the most part too.

35

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

My son will be 18 in less than a year and HE can legally own all the guns he wants. We’ll be going SHOPPING! [/quote]

Be careful; a lot of states (and federal orders) say a felon cannot “live in a home where weapons are kept.”[/quote]

Thanks, JB. I will be checking with my attorney before anything like that. It’s been 20 years, so it’s not like I’m chomping at the bit or anything. I appreciate the concern and rest assured, I won’t be breaking any laws. That chapter in my life is closed.

36

[quote]magick wrote:
I apologize for attempting to turn this into a 2nd amendment debate in advance, but I asked this question to CountingBeans in that “On Government” thread and I want a response-

What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” mean? And how does it relate to the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment that everyone focuses on?[/quote]

I’m not Countingbeans, but I can field that question for you.

In 18th century parlance, “well-regulated” meant “well-supplied” or “well-equipped”.

As far as bean’s original question, I think he’s been living in Massachusetts too long. I like the way Maine’s constitution reads.

“Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”

“…shall never be questioned.”

Something around 1 in 20 adult Mainers has a concealed carry permit, possibly much higher now. Gun stores are as common as barber shops. There is no gun control debate of any significance here in the Pine Tree State. Open carry is legal with no permit. There are no nonsense restrictions on cosmetic features, magazine capacity, perceived deadliness or the ability of a given machine to make a bleeding heart uncomfortable.

We also have the lowest violent crime in the country year-in, year-out. Our system seems to be working.

37

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“SHALL NOT be infringed” pretty much makes licensing and/or restricting gun ownership in any way unconstitutional. Why don’t people get that?

[/quote]

Not, not really. In fact, no other amendment is interpreted so strictly either. The High Court has been over this before, both with other civil rights, as well as with the Second Amendment. Interpreting the COTUS in such a strict matter would turn it into a strict constructionist’s suicide pact of sorts. I’m no advocate for even more extreme regulation, but there are no other major rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for which exceptions do not exist.

There are always reasonable exceptions on which your rights can be curtailed (e.g., situations where warrantless searches and seizures are permissible, limits on First Amendment rights, etc.), and realistically the Second Amendment is going to be no exception. The First Amendment also states that “Congress shall make no law…,” but watch what happens if you send a bona fide death threat to the executive branch.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ask yourself this question, Beans: would you advocate a similar approach to reconciling various public opinions about the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments?

If so, why?

If not, why not?[/quote]

You’ve got to be more specific. I think I know where you’re going with this, but want to be sure.