Common Sense Gun Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

On the subject of militias, most don’t realize that we have an unorganized militia that most able-bodied men are part of.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So the next time a gun grabber asks you which militia you are part of, you can accurately answer the question by citing this code.

42

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Choose another one of our guaranteed freedoms, let’s say that of worship, and see if you can defend the proposed practice of concocting all kinds of restrictions, regulations and concessions in the spirit of “compromise” so as to bring together the competing factions.[/quote]

Okay, my assumption was right, and you’re about to get the very answer you want.

No, there isn’t a single other right (including a free press, which means bloggers are journalists, maybe not good ones, but ones) that I would even fathom allowing myself to have to be licensed to exercise.

However, the very real fear that we are on the verge of having a blue White House for the remainder of my lifetime, or at the very least a majority of the time and losing SCOTUS to the far left, leaves me with a sense of dread.

My system presented is an attempt to prevent things form getting banned. Everything is regulated. The food we eat, beer we drink, cigars, the amount of water in your toilet…

43

^regulated used here is modern connotation.

44

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Okay, my assumption was right, and you’re about to get the very answer you want.

No, there isn’t a single other right (including a free press, which means bloggers are journalists, maybe not good ones, but ones) that I would even fathom allowing myself to have to be licensed to exercise.

However, the very real fear that we are on the verge of having a blue White House for the remainder of my lifetime, or at the very least a majority of the time and losing SCOTUS to the far left, leaves me with a sense of dread.

My system presented is an attempt to prevent things form getting banned. Everything is regulated. The food we eat, beer we drink, cigars, the amount of water in your toilet… [/quote]

I get the angle you are playing here, but if you step back from what’s happening where you happen to live, one thing becomes quite clear.

We are winning. DC v Heller. Macdonald v Chicago. Concealed carry in all 50 states. No recent landmark federal legislation.

The recent gun control victories have all been fly-by-night legislative shenanigans like the NY SAFE act and the nonsense in Colorado. And now the politicians there are dealing with the backlash.

The voices for gun control will always be the loudest. They will always have a favorable platform in most major media outlets. This is not new, nor is any sort of compromise like you are proposing going to quiet them down.

They would just continue harp and bray until the next wave of incremental restrictions gets passed.

I think our gun laws are more than adequate. There is no need to give another inch.

47

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
However, the very real fear that we are on the verge of having a blue White House for the remainder of my lifetime, or at the very least a majority of the time and losing SCOTUS to the far left, leaves me with a sense of dread.
[/quote]

Words on paper only protect us to a point. You can have ‘No Trespassing’ signs all over your property, but they are just pieces of paper/metal/plastic; if someone doesn’t pay attention to them and you’re actually concerned about somebody trespassing, you will need a Plan B.

48

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
but if you step back from what’s happening where you happen to live, one thing becomes quite clear.

We are winning. [/quote]

That’s the hard part. (And yes Push, I’ll be moving the mile down the road to a free state as soon as the boy is done high school. Don’t want to pull him when he is doing well.)

Here’s the thing. I want to build a rifle with my son, because it will be something we remember forever. Out of the 12 or so hours of research I’ve done, 8 of them have been making sure it complies with the stupid laws I have to follow in MA.

[quote]DC v Heller. Macdonald v Chicago. Concealed carry in all 50 states. No recent landmark federal legislation.

The recent gun control victories have all been fly-by-night legislative shenanigans like the NY SAFE act and the nonsense in Colorado. And now the politicians there are dealing with the backlash.[/quote]

Where we’ve won federally, we have lost in the states.

They can bark all they want if they can’t ban shit, imo.

If I was actually confident my rights aren’t about to get slaughtered, I could care if Bloomberg spent his entire fortune.

[quote]I think our gun laws are more than adequate. There is no need to give another inch.
[/quote]

I think, in my state in particular, they are beyond excessive. Which is where this all comes from, like you said.

49

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
The voices for gun control will always be the loudest. They will always have a favorable platform in most major media outlets. This is not new, nor is any sort of compromise like you are proposing going to quiet them down.[/quote]

They can bark all they want if they can’t ban shit, imo.

[/quote]

“shall not be infringed” is already in the constitution, yet the freedom to bear arms is pretty clearly infringed upon. How would the law you are proposing be any different?

Maybe nothing can be banned when it first passes, but if everything goes sour (like you fear) there’s nothing stopping a blue White House and blue Congress from changing this law to be more restrictive, right?

50

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Maybe nothing can be banned when it first passes, but if everything goes sour (like you fear) there’s nothing stopping a blue White House and blue Congress from changing this law to be more restrictive, right? [/quote]

As I presented it, sure.

What if, and we’ll ignore the license for now, we set up a classification system in order to “define and classify” firearms? That’s it for now. Nothing more than a set way to define and classify guns.

Something like:

First level would be barrel length:
Rifle
Hybrid
Pistol

Next level would be rate of fire, and each of above would have each of these
Pump/bolt action
Semi-auto
auto

So on and so forth, so that when Mossberg put out a shotty, it would be listed in the ads they way they are now, but to the government it would be a “Rifle, Class 1.2.1.1.3” Each number representing a factual characteristic of the firearm.

This would force anyone looking to ban the “evil black rifle only good for killing children” (which the new talking point is committing treason by shoot feds, btw) they have to ban an entire class, which isn’t going to fly when the AR & AK are in the same classes as a lot of varmint and target rifles. (well not so much the AK because of the bigger caliber bullet, but you get where I’m coming from.)

51

So, you know, no fucking change from the way it is now, except codified so asshole politicians and other people ignorant as to what they are talking about can get blow out when they start calling to ban shit.

52

We already have firearms classifications.

53

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Maybe nothing can be banned when it first passes, but if everything goes sour (like you fear) there’s nothing stopping a blue White House and blue Congress from changing this law to be more restrictive, right? [/quote]

As I presented it, sure.

What if, and we’ll ignore the license for now, we set up a classification system in order to “define and classify” firearms? That’s it for now. Nothing more than a set way to define and classify guns.

Something like:

First level would be barrel length:
Rifle
Hybrid
Pistol

Next level would be rate of fire, and each of above would have each of these
Pump/bolt action
Semi-auto
auto

So on and so forth, so that when Mossberg put out a shotty, it would be listed in the ads they way they are now, but to the government it would be a “Rifle, Class 1.2.1.1.3” Each number representing a factual characteristic of the firearm.

This would force anyone looking to ban the “evil black rifle only good for killing children” (which the new talking point is committing treason by shoot feds, btw) they have to ban an entire class, which isn’t going to fly when the AR & AK are in the same classes as a lot of varmint and target rifles. (well not so much the AK because of the bigger caliber bullet, but you get where I’m coming from.)
[/quote]

A tyrannical government’s dream-a classification system that will allow it to justify banning ARs AND varmint rifles. Guns are already regulated based on function(automatic weapons are heavily restricted). This type of classification will just allow a two-for-one deal: once people get scared enough to permit heavy regulation of ARs, the people will also permit the heavy regulation of varmint rifles. Sweet. Like I said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which I know you had in coming up with this.

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Maybe nothing can be banned when it first passes, but if everything goes sour (like you fear) there’s nothing stopping a blue White House and blue Congress from changing this law to be more restrictive, right? [/quote]

As I presented it, sure.

What if, and we’ll ignore the license for now, we set up a classification system in order to “define and classify” firearms? That’s it for now. Nothing more than a set way to define and classify guns.

Something like:

First level would be barrel length:
Rifle
Hybrid
Pistol

Next level would be rate of fire, and each of above would have each of these
Pump/bolt action
Semi-auto
auto

So on and so forth, so that when Mossberg put out a shotty, it would be listed in the ads they way they are now, but to the government it would be a “Rifle, Class 1.2.1.1.3” Each number representing a factual characteristic of the firearm.

This would force anyone looking to ban the “evil black rifle only good for killing children” (which the new talking point is committing treason by shoot feds, btw) they have to ban an entire class, which isn’t going to fly when the AR & AK are in the same classes as a lot of varmint and target rifles. (well not so much the AK because of the bigger caliber bullet, but you get where I’m coming from.)
[/quote]

The way you present the above is fine by me. It’s reasonable and logical.

However, I still think we should be caution because a very different outcome could occur regardless of your intention. If we lump firearms together, by barrel length for example, then a Congressman could argue for the banning of the entire class, as you point out. Your argument being that it will be more difficult to ban an entire class, which is logical and I agree with. Remember, though, the argument to ban won’t be logical so said Congressman will still be able to point out the evil black AR style rifle with the pistol grip, 30 round mag, etc… appealing to the emotions of mothers of America to ban the entire class because said evil rifle is in it. Now not only are ARs banned, but your hunting rifles of the same barrel length, ones you can buy at Dicks Sporting Goods regardless of caliber, are also banned.

You could structure the classification system like the IRC I suppose. Maybe that would help, although, I’m not sure it would.

55

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Maybe nothing can be banned when it first passes, but if everything goes sour (like you fear) there’s nothing stopping a blue White House and blue Congress from changing this law to be more restrictive, right? [/quote]

As I presented it, sure.

What if, and we’ll ignore the license for now, we set up a classification system in order to “define and classify” firearms? That’s it for now. Nothing more than a set way to define and classify guns.

Something like:

First level would be barrel length:
Rifle
Hybrid
Pistol

Next level would be rate of fire, and each of above would have each of these
Pump/bolt action
Semi-auto
auto

So on and so forth, so that when Mossberg put out a shotty, it would be listed in the ads they way they are now, but to the government it would be a “Rifle, Class 1.2.1.1.3” Each number representing a factual characteristic of the firearm.

This would force anyone looking to ban the “evil black rifle only good for killing children” (which the new talking point is committing treason by shoot feds, btw) they have to ban an entire class, which isn’t going to fly when the AR & AK are in the same classes as a lot of varmint and target rifles. (well not so much the AK because of the bigger caliber bullet, but you get where I’m coming from.)
[/quote]

A tyrannical government’s dream-a classification system that will allow it to justify banning ARs AND varmint rifles. Guns are already regulated based on function(automatic weapons are heavily restricted). This type of classification will just allow a two-for-one deal: once people get scared enough to permit heavy regulation of ARs, the people will also permit the heavy regulation of varmint rifles. Sweet. Like I said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which I know you had in coming up with this.[/quote]

Lol, beat me to it.

56

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Guns are already regulated based on function(automatic weapons are heavily restricted). [/quote]

Not in the recent past.

Full auto has been limited for civilian use since the 30’s (I think).

However all the successful bans in recent times have been purely on look, accessories and where things were placed.

Look up the “NY Legal AR” and then the legal AR in any free state. Note the difference isn’t in how many dead puppies resulted in it being painted black, but rather a cosmetic feature (pistol grip) which is more efficient, doesn’t make the gun lessor.

Literally, in the attached picture 9 out of 10 grabbers will say the bottom should be banned. They are both MINI14’s.

57

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Guns are already regulated based on function(automatic weapons are heavily restricted). [/quote]

Not in the recent past.

Full auto has been limited for civilian use since the 30’s (I think).

However all the successful bans in recent times have been purely on look, accessories and where things were placed.

Look up the “NY Legal AR” and then the legal AR in any free state. Note the difference isn’t in how many dead puppies resulted in it being painted black, but rather a cosmetic feature (pistol grip) which is more efficient, doesn’t make the gun lessor.

Literally, in the attached picture 9 out of 10 grabbers will say the bottom should be banned. They are both MINI14’s. [/quote]

And I am a much better shot with the top one. Also a pump shotgun is tenfold faster than a bolt gun at cycling and then getting back on target. It and a lever action rifle are much closer to a semi-auto in that regard than a bolt. The recoil should basically pump the shotgun for you.

58

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

And I am a much better shot with the top one.
[/quote]

lol, there is a reason you don’t see a lot of pistol grips hunting or on the trap field.

And you are by far in agreement with the majority I’ve seen talked to and asked who are experienced with a shotgun, that a pump with traditional stock is better than pistol grip.

59

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

And I am a much better shot with the top one.
[/quote]

lol, there is a reason you don’t see a lot of pistol grips hunting or on the trap field.

And you are by far in agreement with the majority I’ve seen talked to and asked who are experienced with a shotgun, that a pump with traditional stock is better than pistol grip. [/quote]

The only real benefit to a pistol grip is if you are required to make a shot from a very awkward position. I have one on my turkey gun for this reason because I have essentially shot it one handed while trying to slowly lean around a tree and under a limb so as to not be seen.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This is true in some respects but there is no question whatsoever that the gun control crowd (and that includes some gun owners who favor “reasonable” restrictions) expressly and/or tacitly promote the idea that the Second is different and must be treated uniquely.

For instance, there are restrictions on First Amendment freedoms but they kick in post speech/worship event not prior.
[/quote]

Well, there are parade permits and such for large demonstrations, but that’s another story. I don’t think we should accept more erosion of liberties simply because the Second Amendment deals with the right to keep and bear arms, which are essentially weapons, but those arguing from the opposite perspective do have a point in that the Second Amendment differs from the others in that regard. We can argue that ALL amendments are unique in some respect, but no, I don’t personally accept that the weaponry aspect means those who choose to keep and bear arms should accept far less liberty in exchange for security.

Nevertheless, the unique aspect of this amendment dealing with weapons is going to necessitate that the cultural and legal debate surrounding Second Amendment issues are going to be framed from a safety standpoint. I think there’s still the possibility of accepting some forms of regulation without greater erosion of liberty, and this thread has brought forth some good debate. However, my original point was only that “shall not be infringed” has not recently, nor will it ever, mean that literally everyone will be able to obtain, possess and use firearms in any capacity, of any type/quantity that s/he sees fit, without any government regulation or control whatsoever. Viewing the Second Amendment in that manner would involve exalting it above the others as well, though I do understand your concerns about accepting too much regulation before exercising the right.