|
joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 6:28:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
No one is talking about banning firearms. Nor heavily restricting them. But to put better controls in place
BS
An there is the first and biggest problem we have as a nation regarding firearms and control: TRUST. Or lack thereof. You do not trust people, BamaD. Why should people trust you? Because of a law? Fine, those that dont trust you remove that law. An now, you dont have a protection and yet, still the same level of distrust. Oh, an that level of distrust keeps growing every day.
Would it make sense to find ways to build trust with everyone involved? Since trust is based on faith. Not of a religious kind but of the 'dont fuck me while I'm down' kind. If more faith was involved between all parties (yes, there are more than just two sides to this...), more trust could be generated. More trust allows for better laws to be created. These created laws may not be as restrictive as the current path this nation is going down. Gun Owners and Concern Citizens have the most to gain from a healthy dose of trust between each other. Gun Nuts and Gun Controllers have much to gain by keeping the level of distrust between Gun Owners and Concern Citizens high.
So your response is not at all a surprised. In fact, I would have been surprised if you had approached that viewpoint in the opposite manner. I set that statement up on purpose. Because the one component not talked about is Trust. Do you trust someone with a gun whom does not behave in a rational or sane manner? That is how many Americans view those with firearms at the moment. Even though reality the majority of firearm owners (i.e. I refer to as Gun Owners) are rational and sane individuals. So why create distrust with your fellow Americans? What is there to gain from it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You want firearms owners to have to attend drills.
Ok, I have to explain things....AGAIN. Do you want your firearms protected under the 2nd amendment? Yes? Then your part of the local militia. You have duties, responsibilities, and a chain of command you will follow. The guns used by the militia are protected (i.e. the original intent of the 2nd's "the right to bear arms') from federal laws. That might mean you have to switch out some of your arms for the militia's approved arms (how that works is debatable I guess).
Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This was actually true of the nation in the first twenty years of its existence. Many hunters had firearms but were not part of any militia in which they operated. If the government decided that muskets were banned, those hunters using firearms that were not a member of a militia (whom used muskets as their arms), would have to get rid of the musket.
Back in the old days, when the militia met up to drill, it was usually a social event that drew the town's people together. They got to know each other, trade information and products. The wives got together to gossip. Kids played. In 2015, most people are lucky to know the people living next door to them let alone those living just 1000 feet from their house. So you get to know other people in the militia. Makes for good networking and maybe some friends that like guns in a manner you do as well. Are you opposed to making friends, BamaD?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You insist that there is no individual right to bear arms.
No, there is no Constitutionally, individual right, under the 2nd. Very big difference between the two concepts. Mine is explained above. For yours to be true, I would have to be advocating a total and complete ban on firearms. Yeah, let me say it for the 217th time.....I'm NOT in favor of banning firearms.
The individual, in good standing with a militia, could have their militia approved arms in their house or business. They would be handled at a higher standard for those arms then other Americans (much like how we handle police officers). You break laws in any form (even speeding 1 mph over the posted limit) calls your credibility to become questioned. To many of violations or a severe one could remove you from the militia (and the protections it gives). If you were kicked out, does that mean you have to hand over your arms? Only if the law states so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You have suggested that people should be limited no more that 4 firearms.
If I stated such, I believe the context was in giving an example to a specific question. How many guns should a person have? Hard to answer. Some people are collectors. Some have arms strictly for sport or hunting. Some like firearms for self defense. If we as a society were to give this a value, we first have to ask 'What are the arms to be used for?" Yes, any gun can be used for self defense; some are just more 'geared' to the task then others.
Spur of the moment number? 3-5 Pistols, 1-3 Rifles, 1-3 Shotguns. Granted this would have to be discuss (as its own thread). An with the acknowledgement that there would be exceptions. What would be counted as an exception? A owner of a firearm store, whom must own the firearm strictly for the purpose of trade rather than full ownership. Yes, this is a very rough idea, and I hope you understand that I'm trying to acknowledge that this sort of concept would have exceptions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You advocate annual mental evaluation of all firearms owners.
Physical, mental, and emotional evaluations. If the police have to undergo this (whom are those '..well regulated militia..' as defined in the 2nd), so will you. A number of mass shooting have taken place in which the shooter was either thought to be, or defined as, mentally/emotionally unstable. This would take several things into consideration. That the ones with guns in the house hold have them...VERY...secured at all times. That if the spouse is being abused, he/she can force the removal of firearms to the the local police station until things are resolved in some good manner.
If a child is known to have a mental/emotional problem, the owner may not be allowed the firearm. Of course this has the added side effect that the adults forgo getting their children help. because of their obsession with firearms is to great. The whole idea here is to promote good healthy living, rather than making people choose 'kids verse firearms'. Frankly, if someone is making this sort of situation, most likely they should have neither children or firearms!
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You advocate putting a tax on firearms and ammunition that is 4x the price of the firearm or ammunition.
Ammunition seems a bit irrelevant in the long haul. As one can make their own ammo! Making a firearm from scratch is a bit more complicated. Yes, 3D printing is coming along curiously enough; its still not at the moment of producing a viable arm that can sustain itself past a few dozen shots. Most gun owners whom have firearms for self defense demand reliability to their arms.
The tax simply artificially increases the cost of the arm. How easy is it for someone to generate $800 for a pistol? That's like 2-3 paychecks for the average household. For single professionals that's 1/4th of their paycheck for one week! The mark up on the black market for arms is not to much higher. What do we see a lot of? Criminals and potential criminals with easy and low-cost access to firearms. Jack that $800 price up to $4,000, and how things are quite a bit different. One has to save money just to purchase the firearm. Takes a few months. The Black Market would be even higher (as a percentage from the first total). Why? There are less people buying firearms as frequently. More people whom are 'honest and law abiding' will have firearms will out number those criminals with guns. This forces the criminal to deal with one of two situations:
A ) Rob the gun owner without a gun
B ) Save money (which can be easily traced)
What do we do with the money raised from the taxes? I dont know.....pay down the US Debt? There is a problem we will have to deal with soon enough.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
All of this and you say no one wants to restrict or ban them, realizing that by declaring the lack of a right you open the door for bans?
I'll admit there are liberals that wish to ban firearms. I'm not one of those individuals. In fact, I do not have a problem with Gun Owners, with guns. I have a problem with Gun Nuts, with guns. The problem is that Gun Nuts try to make the public think they are Gun Owners. Gun Owners....REALLY....do not want to be seen as or associating with, Gun Nuts. If we could easily pick out Gun Nuts from Gun Owners, we could target laws on the Gun Nuts rather than 'across the board'. Actually, we can't even do that; we have to apply laws 'across the board....evenly'.
The 'right' that you think you have under the 2nd amendment is a political judgement from the US Supreme Court case. A case in which the Justices should never have taken up in court, since the lower courts were in agreement. A 'right' that has been brainwashed into Americans by the 24/7/365 day conservative propaganda machine that has been in operation for over twenty-five years. The founding father never intended the 2nd to be used in a manner granting 'just anyone' a firearm that has 'little to no restrictions'. They believed a corrupt government could take over unless proper elements were in place to prevent it. That element would be a militia whom is answerable to the people. In fact the final part of the 2nd ("shall not be infringed") has to do with the militia rather than the individual person. They did not believe 'thugs' should have guns by which to prey or intimidate the populace. Which is sort of along the lines some Americans with guns, do towards their fellow Americans (with or without knowing it too).
Understand that firearms, under the Constitution were handled in one of two ways: They either applied under the 2nd, or the 10th. If you were not in a militia, your rights and privileges regarding firearms were left up to 'the state'. Which could be a good/bad thing depending on your stance with firearms in the hands of people you do not trust/know.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You must think we are really stupid to believe your protestations of open mindedness.
I dont care. I have time and human psychology on my side. Mass shootings are frequently in the news. Lesser levels of shootings take place every day. There are communities around the nation that keep experiencing deadly shootings. Bystanders being killed. Road rage morons with guns. Even threatening conservatives buying up every gun for some 'showdown with President Obama'. All this and more tells me that time and people's minds will change laws. They'll become ore restrictive the long nothing is done. Meaning the longer we wait to deal with reality; the more restrictive those laws will become.
I see two possible futures for this nation. Neither of them are in our long term best interests. We'll eventually get to one or the other in about 16-21 years. Which is why I've stated a different path. One in which good and honest Americans can have/use firearms, lowers how many criminals have firearms, and helps keep those whom are a danger to themselves and others, from such arms. Its not a perfect system. But better than the path this nation is on right now. I've tried to convey that several times. Yes, I'm wrong to have thought you and others were more intelligent than a simple grapefruit! My bad....
|
|
|
|
