Members J. Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, the idea would be the same in any insurgency I suppose. The insurgents (in this case, the American people), would cause enough ruckus that the gov't would break apart or the military would revolt and/or side with the people. Of course people armed with .30-30 lever action rifles don't stand a snowball's chance against helicopters, fighter planes, and bombers. Yes, if the "1 million" gov't troops turned on the "70 million" people and saw it to the end, the people would be finished. Of course, what would be left to govern? By destroying its own people (and largely the infrastructure), they'd destroy themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I agree with all that. My point was only directed at the 1 million vs 70 million issue. If that 1 million all turned against the 70 mil, the people would be f'd in the Arse. Sure. with all of the technology and armaments they have, I agree. But i really don't see that day coming. I also don't see a day coming when the government is really trying to or able to ban guns in this country. I think some individual legislators would like to see that happen, but this is an issue that DEFINITELY crosses party lines, and even without the SC ruling on it, it would never happen. There is not enough support for that idea. If there was the SC would most likely strike i down. If that failed, then maybe, maybe you would see that type of scenario play out. But I just don' realistically see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Sure. with all of the technology and armaments they have, I agree. But i really don't see that day coming. I also don't see a day coming when the government is really trying to or able to ban guns in this country. I think some individual legislators would like to see that happen, but this is an issue that DEFINITELY crosses party lines, and even without the SC ruling on it, it would never happen. There is not enough support for that idea. If there was the SC would most likely strike i down. If that failed, then maybe, maybe you would see that type of scenario play out.But I just don' realistically see that happening. I'll add that I think those that are pushing for gun bans are doing it for show as well. They really don't want to ban guns but it makes them look good to their supporters. So they push it hard knowing it will never pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Ideally, I would like some reasonable gun legislation. If I was king of the United States, I would introduce a bill called the "Gun Owner Responsibility Act" that would include the following provisions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'm going to start a campaign for required gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'm going to start a campaign for required gun ownership. I'm going to shoot you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'm going to start a campaign for required gun ownership. Awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Ideally, I would like some reasonable gun legislation. If I was king of the United States, I would introduce a bill called the "Gun Owner Responsibility Act" that would include the following provisions: I would even go a step further and require a training course to be completed and passed in order to own firearms. I don't think that infringes on the 2nd at all. Make sure that the individual can pass a written test and demonstrate proficiency in the handling, cleaning and breakdown, firing etc of firearms. Different levels of license for different classifications of firearms (such as Class III weapons, etc). I don't find that even remotely unreasonable. We do as much with automobiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 I would even go a step further and require a training course to be completed and passed in order to own firearms. I don't think that infringes on the 2nd at all. Make sure that the individual can pass a written test and demonstrate proficiency in the handling, cleaning and breakdown, firing etc of firearms. Different levels of license for different classifications of firearms (such as Class III weapons, etc). I don't find that even remotely unreasonable. We do as much with automobiles. Autos aren't a Constitutionally protected right. A better analogy would be requiring tests for voting. We've tried that. BZZZT! Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I would even go a step further and require a training course to be completed and passed in order to own firearms. I don't think that infringes on the 2nd at all. Make sure that the individual can pass a written test and demonstrate proficiency in the handling, cleaning and breakdown, firing etc of firearms. Different levels of license for different classifications of firearms (such as Class III weapons, etc). I don't find that even remotely unreasonable. We do as much with automobiles. I agree with this as well. Not every jack ass should be able to get his/her hands on a gun. I'm all for reasonable regulation. Hell - a lot of states make you go through gun training to be able to hunt. A far more acceptable use of owning firearms - and it requires more training. Some dip {censored} wants to look cool with his Desert Eagle .50 and doesn't know the first thing about gun safety. I hate running into those guys at the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Autos aren't a Constitutionally protected right. A better analogy would be requiring tests for voting. We've tried that. BZZZT! Thanks for playing. Well, true. Bad analogy. You got me. But I still think it makes a LOT of sense. It's a deadly weapon, and I don't think that this requirement would violate rights of gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, true. Bad analogy. You got me. But I still think it makes a LOT of sense. It's a deadly weapon, and I don't think that this requirement would violate rights of gun owners. Guys that can't read and/or write and/or pass tests have the same right to gun ownership that anyone else does and people that can't use the weapons safely have the same rights as the experts. It makes a lot of sense without considering the constitution though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ec437 Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 People get a little carried away about this stuff. Let's look at it from a more reasonable perspective.We're talking about bits of hardware that are potentially dangerous but which have several legitimate uses for various people. Anything else like that around? Oh, wait, there are! They've got four wheels, you have to be sixteen and pass a written test plus a hands-on performance evaluation before you can legally operate one. You know - cars.So why can't we apply the same principle to guns? If you're under sixteen your parents can let you use theirs on their property (or at a range) under their direct supervision, but you can't carry one around until then. Anyone over sixteen can take a written test on basic safety rules and then pass a simple performance test (head down to the police target range and show that you at least know which end is the dangerous end and can at least hit enough of what you're shooting at to be a minimum threat to others when you're operating your machine around them). A background check to be sure you aren't a registered felon might also be a good idea.That gets you a G or something on your driver's license, down in that special codes section where they denote if you need glasses or anything. Just stick a little letter on there showing that you've proven yourself to be competent to handle a firearm properly. Or you can stick with having a separate carry permit instead of putting it on the driver's license; whatever. The point is, you show yourself competent to use one, and then you can carry one.No registration required for owning one, but you need that little letter on your license (or a permit, whatever) to buy one. Just flash that at the store owner, and then buy whatever you want. Want explosives? Well, those are a little more dangerous, so there's an additional test and permit for that. Want an automatic weapon? Why not; they're supposed to be fun to shoot. But they're a little more dangerous, so there's an additional test and permit. Major trouble if you get caught with one without the permit! Want an intercontinental ballistic missile? Well, there are treaty issues there, so I think you're probably out of luck.We make this way too complicated. Your analogy breaks down when we require registration for motor vehicles and limit the kinds that can be driven on public roads.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Your analogy breaks down when we require registration for motor vehicles and limit the kinds that can be driven on public roads.... Of course it breaks down - it's an analogy. They all break down after a certain point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Guys that can't read and/or write and/or pass tests have the same right to gun ownership that anyone else does and people that can't use the weapons safely have the same rights as the experts. It makes a lot of sense without considering the constitution though. This is true - though some of our other constutionally protected rights are regulated as well.... Freedom of Speech for one. It's a major part of why we constantly run into this argument. I would think most everyone agrees that not just anyone should be able to get any gun they want for any reason. Most people I've talked to about this - pro gun ownership included - agree there should be some sort of regulation. But damn if we can come to an agreement on how much regulation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 Guys that can't read and/or write and/or pass tests have the same right to gun ownership that anyone else does and people that can't use the weapons safely have the same rights as the experts. It makes a lot of sense without considering the constitution though. You could do a verbal test for the illiterate, and the mandatory training would cure the people who can't use them safely. You would be doing them (and all of the rest of us) a favor. I understand your point, and agree with it in spirit. There is room to meet in the middle though. Hell, make the training and certification free to the person taking it for all I care. Paid for by the taxpayers. Better use of our money than I'm seeing right now. Let them keep taking it until they learn and pass. Also remember the 2nd is not absolute. Current laws bar felons, people with a history of domestic abuse, etc from owning firearms. Regulation and licensing for the purpose of demonstrating proficiency could easily be construed as a reasonable requirement, much as not having a felony conviction or restraining order or a history of drug abuse is a requirement now. Or the neccesity of procuring a Class III license for certain weapons. All of these have been tested and found constitutionally viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 It's a major part of why we constantly run into this argument. I would think most everyone agrees that not just anyone should be able to get any gun they want for any reason. Most people I've talked to about this - pro gun ownership included - agree there should be some sort of regulation. But damn if we can come to an agreement on how much regulation People can agree on anything they want, but 99.9% of them have no basis for their positions in light of the legal rights granted by the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members donnievaz Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 A lone nut cannot be defended against. Did you miss the whole point of the story? If she'd had her gun, most of those people would be alive today. Plain and simple. A lone nut can most certainly be defended against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I agree with this as well. Not every jack ass should be able to get his/her hands on a gun. I'm all for reasonable regulation. Hell - a lot of states make you go through gun training to be able to hunt. A far more acceptable use of owning firearms - and it requires more training. Some dip {censored} wants to look cool with his Desert Eagle .50 and doesn't know the first thing about gun safety. I hate running into those guys at the range. I think that's reasonable. If you want to get your CCW permit here in Minnesota, you have to attend (and pass) a course that can be completed in one day. I think that could be implemented for those wishing to own a firearm, and for a nominal fee ($50 or less). Furthermore, those wishing to engage in the sale and trade of firearms, even across state lines, could ship from licensed owner to licensed owner, not having to got through the FFL transfer rigmarole. You also wouldn't have to worry about things like permits to purchase and whatnot. If you have the license, you can engage in whatever firearms related commerce you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 How so? Unless I'm screwing this up somehow....I may very well be wrong.... Isn't it illegal to say you are going to kill the president? You can't swear on publicly broadcast television/radio. The Miller Test - are what come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 Unless I'm screwing this up somehow....I may very well be wrong.... Isn't it illegal to say you are going to kill the president? You can't swear on publicly broadcast television/radio. The Miller Test - are what come to mind. I've run out of time to talk about it now , but yeah, it gets complicated . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BottomHeavyKate Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 I've run out of time to talk about it now , but yeah, it gets complicated . I'd be interested in picking up this topic sometime. I'd like to gleam some insight from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'd be interested in picking up this topic sometime. I'd like to gleam some insight from you. I'd be happy to. Too many fires at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LanEvo Posted February 24, 2009 Members Share Posted February 24, 2009 The government already out guns you in every imaginable way. Your guns can't be used for revolt and uprising. You've already lost. Tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis. They seem to be doing a pretty good job standing up to the most sophisticated, powerful military in the world using primitive tools. Ditto for the architects of the American Revolution. "You're already outgunned, therefore you might as well surrender" strikes me as a pretty weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2009 Tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis. They seem to be doing a pretty good job standing up to the most sophisticated, powerful military in the world using primitive tools. Funny, I would have used the same example to argue the other side. All of it is a weak argument and, more importantly, irrelevant. I was making a dumb argument on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.