My Proposal for alleviating United States Firearm issues

[Desk trauma]

But 98 does have a point, the second amendment was written by people who had just fought a shooting war against a government that had turned oppressive and unresponsive. It's hard to imagine that was not the scenario they had in mind while writing the amendment.

Be that as it may US civilians with small arms overthrowing the government is a fantasy.

 

[Desk trauma]

In any case, some pro-gun advocates in this forum have said that they realize that they have no real chance against government troops, but are concerned with protecting themselves against mob action by Liberals.

I'm told an active fantasy life is healthy.

 

[98cwitr]

Be that as it may US civilians with small arms overthrowing the government is a fantasy.

Not when you consider the amount of conservatives that would defect if an anti-Constitutional regime was implemented, coupled with state and local law enforcement, and coupled with the performance of poor starving rice farmers with AK47s in North Vietnam. Armed citizenry is a deterrent. If it weren't, they wouldn't be trying to take the guns in the first place. They'd just do it.

 

[Speedwell]

But 98 does have a point, the second amendment was written by people who had just fought a shooting war against a government that had turned oppressive and unresponsive. It's hard to imagine that was not the scenario they had in mind while writing the amendment.

What they had in mind was a force of citizen soldiers--the "well-regulated militia." Ownership of guns in secret from the government was not contemplated. And if, in fact, registered ownership led to an attempted confiscation it could not as a practical matter be accomplished with all gun owners simultaneously, giving the rest time to organize some kind of response.

 

[LostMarbels]

Agree with everything except the following.

4. Mandate that there shall never be a gun registry, and that possessing a firearm license in no way insinuates that you are actually a firearm owner.

Having a serial number/ownership registry is important in relation of investigating a crime and for forensics in court.

1. Institute a national licensing model. This model could be rolled into national identity systems, controlled by the states, such as state-issued ID cards; or even federally via SS. Either way, the following requirements to obtain and purchase a firearm, either from an FFL or privately would be as follows

a. Firearms proficiency class and training. You must know how to use a firearm and how to store it safely.

I would vote for this if it provided for:

Tests, and licensure controlled/conducted by Licensed certified NRA trainers or RSO's that understand guns. Basically people that handle gus and are very familiar with them, and would want the system to work because the enjoy firearms. Not just some politician sitting behind a desk.

I would also suggest testing for basic cary, (EDC) not on your person but in possession, open carry, and CC as separate course and separate licensure such as a CDL has endorsements. Reason being, there is a big difference in just being in possession of a properly stowed weapon used to hunt or shoot at the range, and a weapon intentionally carried on the person with the intent of personal protection.

 

[98cwitr]

Agree with everything except the following.



Having a serial number/ownership registry is important in relation of investigating a crime and for forensics in court.

Wouldn't simply doing ballistic testing satisfy those aims? Besides, that serial has no bearing for gun identification in court. It's down to barrel rifling thumbprinting/signature. Which is easily bypassed if the criminal were to simply swap barrels after the crime was committed.

I would vote for this if it provided for:

Tests, and licensure controlled/conducted by Licensed certified NRA trainers or RSO's that understand guns. Basically people that handle gus and are very familiar with them, and would want the system to work because the enjoy firearms. Not just some politician sitting behind a desk.

Yep, and sounds good to me. We have that in North Carolina for CCW permits now.

I would also suggest testing for basic cary, (EDC) not on your person but in possession, open carry, and CC as separate course and separate licensure such as a CDL has endorsements. Reason being, there is a big difference in just being in possession of a properly stowed weapon used to hunt or shoot at the range, and a weapon intentionally carried on the person with the intent of personal protection.

Sort of undermines the entire basis of Constitutional Carry to begin with, as many states right now have open carry laws separate from concealed. The point being is that I shouldn't have to prove or pay, beyond reasonable level of training, anything in addition to how I carry my weapon. To your point, that intent of personal protection should not be infringed. Roll up concealed training within the training courses. Might as well make the training as thorough as one needs to make sure all the bases are covered. Two full day program? Sure.

 

[Desk trauma]

Not when you consider the amount of conservatives that would defect if an anti-Constitutional regime was implemented, coupled with state and local law enforcement, and coupled with the performance of poor starving rice farmers with AK47s in North Vietnam.

Adopting founding myths from other nations too I see.

 

[98cwitr]

Adopting founding myths from other nations too I see.

What you consider "myths" I call likely outcomes.

 

[paul1149]

OP, it looks like you've put a lot of careful thought into your proposals. I don't know enough about what all the abbreviations mean, etc, to comment much on them. But I can say that at the root of the problem is lack of trust. All the way back to Howard Mezzinger(sp?) of Ohio, several decades ago, it was openly acknowledged by gun "control" proponents that their laws would do little to no good until they could "ban them all". Since then they've been more subtle, but now we have Robert Francis O'Rourke, who only last year adamantly assured voters that they could keep their AR-14s, abruptly changing his tune and saying, "Hell yes, we're going to take them". Yes, he is desperately trying to keep his bid for the presidential nomination alive, but many believe he is finally being honest. Confiscation is the end game of the gun control lobby. And knowing that makes the other side appropriately obdurate.

If we had more trust, we could get further with legislation. But then, if we had more trust in our society, there would be less need for legislation. There would be less violence. The family would be more intact, kids would be brought up by parents rather than schools, and we would be a happier and more godly society.

Until that happy day, I consider gun ownership a vital part of self-defense, and I look with extreme distrust on attempts to limit that right.

 

[Desk trauma]

What you consider "myths" I call likely outcomes.

The myth is the idea that the Vietnamese forces were "starving rice farmers" rather then a well organized insurgency with a logistic trail pumping in tons of supplies night and day.

 

[98cwitr]

OP, it looks like you've put a lot of careful thought into your proposals. I don't know enough about what all the abbreviations mean, etc, to comment much on them. But I can say that at the root of the problem is lack of trust. All the way back to Howard Mezzinger(sp?) of Ohio, several decades ago, it was openly acknowledged by gun "control" proponents that their laws would do little to no good until they could "ban them all". Since then they've been more subtle, but now we have Robert Francis O'Rourke, who only last year adamantly assured voters that they could keep their AR-14s, abruptly changing his tune and saying, "Hell yes, we're going to take them". Yes, he is desperately trying to keep his bid for the presidential nomination alive, but many believe he is finally being honest. Confiscation is the end game of the gun control lobby. And knowing that makes the other side appropriately obdurate.

If we had more trust, we could get further with legislation. But then, if we had more trust in our society, there would be less need for legislation. There would be less violence. The family would be more intact, kids would be brought up by parents rather than schools, and we would be a happier and more godly society.

Until that happy day, I consider gun ownership a vital part of self-defense, and I look with extreme distrust on attempts to limit that right.

I trust my neighbors, and I hope you do. If we see the forest for the trees, we see that folks like Robert and Warren are fear mongers. They stir up this rhetoric to get us to fear, but Perfect Love (Christ) drives out fear. We simply have a healthy anticipation of tyranny because we realize this world is fallen.

 

[98cwitr]

The myth is the idea that the Vietnamese forces were "starving rice farmers" rather then a well organized insurgency with a logistic trail pumping in tons of supplies night and day.

And you don't think the American people are capable of that and more?

 

[Desk trauma]

And you don't think the American people are capable of that and more?

No.

 

[98cwitr]

No.

Well, I am sorry but we will simply disagree on that point then.

 

[LostMarbels]

Sort of undermines the entire basis of Constitutional Carry to begin with, as many states right now have open carry laws separate from concealed. The point being is that I shouldn't have to prove or pay, beyond reasonable level of training, anything in addition to how I carry my weapon. To your point, that intent of personal protection should not be infringed. Roll up concealed training within the training courses. Might as well make the training as thorough as one needs to make sure all the bases are covered. Two full day program? Sure.

Well regulated, but not infringed. People keep forgetting it is constitutional to regulate guns in a reasonable manner, in which the are still readily available. I believe anyone should be allowed to own the guns they want. Have at it. When dealing with guns I also believe they should be properly trained in such a manner that is actualy achievable, as in not infringing on their rights, but restrictive to the point where you actualy have to know how to properly use them if your going to get a weapon.

 

[Desk trauma]

Well, I am sorry but we will simply disagree on that point then.

There is simply no comparison between the current US population and the Vietnamese population of the time. We have not endured decades of occupation and civil war. War are not accustomed to any kind of hardship nor privation. We are not united around any great persuasive idea, such as national independence and marxist delusions.

 

[LostMarbels]

Wouldn't simply doing ballistic testing satisfy those aims? Besides, that serial has no bearing for gun identification in court. It's down to barrel rifling thumbprinting/signature. Which is easily bypassed if the criminal were to simply swap barrels after the crime was committed.

I'm honestly kind of on the fence about that. I do not see it as any more harmful than a vin number. Then at the same time we know they will be used for gun grabs.

I guess I am still weighing this one out in my mind.

 

[Speedwell]

Well regulated, but not infringed. People keep forgetting it is constitutional to regulate guns in a reasonable manner, in which the are still readily available. I believe anyone should be allowed to own the guns they want. Have at it. When dealing with guns I also believe they should be properly trained in such a manner that is actualy achievable, as in not infringing on their rights, but restrictive to the point where you actualy have to know how to properly use them if your going to get a weapon.

That's why I like licensing and liability insurance. Let the private sector handle it. A responsible adult who wants a handgun for home protection, takes training and secures the gun properly would pay no more than a nominal sum for insurance. A 38-year-old single unemployed man living in his mother's basement with a Confederate flag on the wall and 23 semi-automatic military style weapons nursing paranoid fantasies about standing off a liberal takeover might have to pay thousands.

 

[Nithavela]

Doesn't give them even equal power to the military. It does though give them a fighting chance in the event the government attempts tyranny.

When the US government attempts to install a tyranny, a lot of those weapons will be taken up in defense of the tyranny.

 

[Speedwell]

When the US government attempts to install a tyranny, a lot of those weapons will be taken up in defense of the tyranny.

Not so fast, there. In the minds of our wanna-be Minute Men it's always the Real Americans resisting the tyranny of the Left, and everybody knows that liberals don't own guns.