Poll

Is gun control an effective means of reducing violent crime

Yes.  People cannot be trusted with guns for any reason.  If the population is not armed, then there are less guns in the hands of criminals.  As a result there will be less violent crime
Yes.  But only for gun crimes, it will have no effect on other types of violent crimes
Yes and no.  It may reduce crimes commited with guns, but criminal will then resort to other weapons such as knives.  Other violent crimes will increase
No.  Criminals will get guns despite the law, it will have no effect on crime
No.  Not only will criminals ignore this law and get guns illegally, but such laws will make for easier victims since they will not be armed.  Crime rates will increase
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 67   Go Down

Gun Control

  • 1998 Replies
  • 470324 Views
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #480 on: July 20, 2009, 11:56:43 AM »
Thought I'd bump this, maybe redirect the subject a bit to the second amendment.  Aside from what the supreme court has decided on the matter, how do you interpret the amendment.  Does it guarantee an individual right to bear arms, or just a collective right of the states to be able to form a well regulated militia. 

Does the justification clause imply an expiration date on the operative?

Quote
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.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #481 on: July 20, 2009, 12:22:16 PM »
Even if it only meant a militia I doubt they meant the national guard, who have their bases on federal property, and receive federal funding etc.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #482 on: July 20, 2009, 12:30:11 PM »
I interpret the first part of the amendment as a purpose, or justification.  The second part is the operative, in other words, this is how we are going to accomplish that purpose. (By forbidding the government to deny arms to the people).

Hence why I asked, do you (all) believe that the justification clause implies an expiration date on the operative?  When there is no longer a need for a militia (or if the government decides there is no longer a need for a militia), does that mean the operative literally expires.

Also, does the justification clause imply a restriction to the operative?  Does it only protect the rights of those that are in the militia?
Logged
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #483 on: July 20, 2009, 03:54:33 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 20, 2009, 12:30:11 PM
I interpret the first part of the amendment as a purpose, or justification.  The second part is the operative, in other words, this is how we are going to accomplish that purpose. (By forbidding the government to deny arms to the people).

Hence why I asked, do you (all) believe that the justification clause implies an expiration date on the operative?  When there is no longer a need for a militia (or if the government decides there is no longer a need for a militia), does that mean the operative literally expires.

Also, does the justification clause imply a restriction to the operative?  Does it only protect the rights of those that are in the militia?

The term 'The People' refers, in the Second, to the same body it does in the Fourth and Tenth: to the citizens of the United States.  At the time of its writing, the standing army was considered antithetical to a free society.  It still is by me.  Because the framers clearly never intended for a standing army, the idea that the 'justification clause' would have been intended to create an expiration on the 'operative clause' seems unlikely.

The purpose of the Second is to ensure that the other nine Amendments (and the rest of the Constitution, for that matter) have teeth.  In my opinion, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional, and should be overturned.

I also believe in the elimination of the standing army in favor of a citizen militia similar to the systems in Israel and Switzerland.  An armed society is a polite society, the histories of the State of Florida before and after its concealed carry laws were reformed and Australia before and after its were made draconian prove that beyond all doubt.
Logged
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #484 on: July 20, 2009, 08:37:41 PM »
If the government decides that the need for a militia is ended then they should amend the constitution to say so. Just like if they decided that we no longer needed the freedom of speech.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #485 on: July 21, 2009, 04:53:46 AM »
As a European, you might expect me to be very anti-guns, but the way I see it the problem in the United States is not gun-ownership but gun-culture. Personally, I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. You cannot blame a weapon for the decisions you make.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #486 on: July 21, 2009, 12:58:02 PM »
Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2009, 08:37:41 PM
If the government decides that the need for a militia is ended then they should amend the constitution to say so. Just like if they decided that we no longer needed the freedom of speech.

Actually they would not have to do anything.  The purpose clause in the 2nd amendment does not obligate the federal government keep a "well regulated" militia at all.  In fact, there is nothing stopping them from completely undermining a well regulated militia by whatever means they can come up with, so long as they do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  So for example, they could refuse to train or fund a militia, or reduce its effectiveness by keeping a separate standing army.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:53:46 AM
As a European, you might expect me to be very anti-guns, but the way I see it the problem in the United States is not gun-ownership but gun-culture. Personally, I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. You cannot blame a weapon for the decisions you make.

Going back to the previous topic, I agree.
Logged
?

Anteater7171

  • 9408
  • +0/-0
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #487 on: July 21, 2009, 01:05:30 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:53:46 AM
As a European, you might expect me to be very anti-guns, but the way I see it the problem in the United States is not gun-ownership but gun-culture. Personally, I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. You cannot blame a weapon for the decisions you make.
The gun culture isn't to blame for crime rates, in fact they lower them. The gun culture tends to be focused on education and proper use of firearms. Any augment otherwise stems from ignorance.

If you care to enlighten yourself read up here
http://www.thehighroad.org/
Logged
Quote from: Muphci on August 14, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #488 on: July 21, 2009, 01:39:27 PM »
Quote from: Anteater7171 on July 21, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:53:46 AM
As a European, you might expect me to be very anti-guns, but the way I see it the problem in the United States is not gun-ownership but gun-culture. Personally, I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. You cannot blame a weapon for the decisions you make.
The gun culture isn't to blame for crime rates, in fact they lower them. The gun culture tends to be focused on education and proper use of firearms. Any augment otherwise stems from ignorance.

If you care to enlighten yourself read up here
http://www.thehighroad.org/

Yes, but there is also an undeniable and almost pornographic culture of guns = power in the United States. I have said as much before, but I believe that all gun ownership should be tied to an independent national organisation of gun clubs, and that the organisations should be responsible for the sale and regulation of guns.

The right to bear arms was in my opinion very deliberately included in U.S. the constitution (and indeed is deliberately ambiguous). The form that right takes however is not included, and whilst as a non-American I am against the banning of firearms, I am equally against the way in which guns are sold and regulated in America.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Soze

  • 1291
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #489 on: July 21, 2009, 01:46:37 PM »
Where's the voting option for decreasing the rate of accidental deaths? I seem to recall that more people die from dumb mistakes than criminal actions...

If this had an actual impact on legislation, I would prefer the other larger variables weren't missing.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 02:11:03 PM by Soze »
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #490 on: July 21, 2009, 02:04:05 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2009, 08:37:41 PM
If the government decides that the need for a militia is ended then they should amend the constitution to say so. Just like if they decided that we no longer needed the freedom of speech.

Actually they would not have to do anything.  The purpose clause in the 2nd amendment does not obligate the federal government keep a "well regulated" militia at all.  In fact, there is nothing stopping them from completely undermining a well regulated militia by whatever means they can come up with, so long as they do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  So for example, they could refuse to train or fund a militia, or reduce its effectiveness by keeping a separate standing army.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:53:46 AM
As a European, you might expect me to be very anti-guns, but the way I see it the problem in the United States is not gun-ownership but gun-culture. Personally, I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. You cannot blame a weapon for the decisions you make.

Going back to the previous topic, I agree.

It clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary. Not that if it is necessary.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #491 on: July 21, 2009, 02:13:37 PM »
True, but it does not change the fact that this is a justification clause, not an operative.  It confers no action on the government part.  Only the following clause, the operative, specifies an action, or in this case a restriction.

Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #492 on: July 21, 2009, 02:25:06 PM »
Though the constitution is the law of the land. If it says that a well regulated militia is necessary, it is not up to anyone except 3/4 of congress to say otherwise.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #493 on: July 21, 2009, 02:41:07 PM »
That militia need not be government run however. I personally believe that for gun ownership laws to be fully constitutional, an independent nationwide body should be created to regulate gun ownership and gun sales. A national infrastructure of gun clubs should be set up, and whilst they should be subject to state assessment and would ultimately still be subject to the law of the land, they should be the only outlet for weapons. To own a weapon, an individual should have to undergo psychological assessment and receive training via their local gun club, and these would effectively function as 21st century 'militias'. All sales go through these clubs, and any other sales would be illegal.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #494 on: July 21, 2009, 02:42:44 PM »
Quote from: Raist on July 21, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Though the constitution is the law of the land. If it says that a well regulated militia is necessary, it is not up to anyone except 3/4 of congress to say otherwise.

correct (except for the part about 3/4th of congress).  My point was the only action that is required of the government to ensure the potential for a well regulated militia is the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  They have no obligation to the well regulated militia outside of that.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #495 on: July 21, 2009, 02:46:49 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:41:07 PM
That militia need not be government run however. I personally believe that for gun ownership laws to be fully constitutional, an independent nationwide body should be created to regulate gun ownership and gun sales. A national infrastructure of gun clubs should be set up, and whilst they should be subject to state assessment and would ultimately still be subject to the law of the land, they should be the only outlet for weapons. To own a weapon, an individual should have to undergo psychological assessment and receive training via their local gun club, and these would effectively function as 21st century 'militias'. All sales go through these clubs, and any other sales would be illegal.

I think we already have something similar to this.  Though it goes to far.  The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is in charge of regulating the sale of firearms and setting restrictions on the gun clubs/ranges/shops that sell firearms.  Where you can carry a gun, etc. is controlled by state law.
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #496 on: July 21, 2009, 02:50:00 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 02:42:44 PM
correct (except for the part about 3/4th of congress).  My point was the only action that is required of the government to ensure the potential for a well regulated militia is the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  They have no obligation to the well regulated militia outside of that.

Meh, I couldn't remember the fraction, is it 3/4 of the states that must ratify it? It's been a while since social studies.


@ the gun club suggestion. That is completely against the spirit of the constitution and the gun clubs would assume a power beyond that of any non government institution. They would decide who has the right to defend themselves, and would effectively give them control of the people. It would have infinite potential for abuse and the current laws are just as effective. It would also give a club access to information on your psychological standing, as well as the government.

As it is if you are diagnosed with certain mental illnesses you can not buy a gun, if you have committed a felony same deal. There are background checks and waiting periods also. There is basically zero chance you could buy a gun on the spur of the moment to kill someone legally. If you are willing to wait through all the processes we now have in place, then you would be just as willing to acquire a gun illegally or use some other weapon.

I grew up with guns with no formal education in them (except for hunter's safety to get my hunting license) and I have never once misfired a gun, never shot someone, and the biggest accident that has happened to me is being shot by someone else in the woods who fired through the woods for no reason. The guy that shot me was rich, in fine health, had passed tons of permits, and had a license for owning automatic weapons. He gave me cash for the wound if I wouldn't report it. Your system for gun control might have routed me out, but he would have gotten right through it.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #497 on: July 21, 2009, 02:56:55 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:41:07 PM
That militia need not be government run however. I personally believe that for gun ownership laws to be fully constitutional, an independent nationwide body should be created to regulate gun ownership and gun sales. A national infrastructure of gun clubs should be set up, and whilst they should be subject to state assessment and would ultimately still be subject to the law of the land, they should be the only outlet for weapons. To own a weapon, an individual should have to undergo psychological assessment and receive training via their local gun club, and these would effectively function as 21st century 'militias'. All sales go through these clubs, and any other sales would be illegal.

I think we already have something similar to this.  Though it goes to far.  The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is in charge of regulating the sale of firearms and setting restrictions on the gun clubs/ranges/shops that sell firearms.  Where you can carry a gun, etc. is controlled by state law.

Yes, but that body is not independent of the state. I am talking about a national organisation that will sell and regulate weapons without any middle-man involved. There would be no gun stores, just gun clubs that sell weapons, and they wouldn't just be regulated by this body, they would be the body. It would effectively own and run these clubs. The state would regulate this body (which we'll call the 'National Militia' from now on), but the body itself would be as independent of the state as anyone else. If it came to crunch time, it would be able to stand against the government and distribute weaponary against the state's wishes if need be.

America was founded by what we would today refer to as insurgents; the first step of any dictatorship has almost always been to disarm the populace. Sometimes, because of the success and affluence of the societies we live in, we forget how quickly things have deteriorated in the past. It's become a really annoying cliche ever since the film V for Vendetta came out (you'd think the idea had never existed before), but 'people shouldn't fear their governments; governments should fear their people'. The state should always have a legal monopoly on violence, as it's the basis of law and order, but it should never have an actual monopoly on violence.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #498 on: July 21, 2009, 02:59:40 PM »
So basically you want a single club in charge of all the weapons in the country as well as privy to private information of anyone that wants to obtain a gun.

That isn't a great way to start an organized crime syndicate as powerful or more powerful than the government.
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #499 on: July 21, 2009, 03:07:57 PM »
So wait, the government is not allowed to take away our guns, but what is the difference if the "National Militia" can?
Logged
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #500 on: July 21, 2009, 03:11:49 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 03:07:57 PM
So wait, the government is not allowed to take away our guns, but what is the difference if the "National Militia" can?

He thinks there needs to be a higher power telling us what we can and cannot do, yet he also believes we have to follow every rule.

He knows why the cage bird sings.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #501 on: July 21, 2009, 05:39:26 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 03:07:57 PM
So wait, the government is not allowed to take away our guns, but what is the difference if the "National Militia" can?

They can't take away your guns if you already have them. They can however refuse to sell you guns until you join your local militia and go through the proper procedure.

The point is that on the one hand, we have a centralised, properly regulated system. Less loonies buying guns, less dodgy gun sales, more weapon awareness and discipline (and a better understanding of what the second amendment is all about). On the other hand, we keep the control and distribution of civilian weapons outside of government hands, and put it in the hands of people who know and understand firearms and the importance of the right to bear arms. Of course, this organisation will still be subject to the rule of law, but if legislation against the right to bear arms ever went too far, it would be a powerful check against it.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #502 on: July 21, 2009, 05:59:34 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 05:39:26 PM
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 03:07:57 PM
So wait, the government is not allowed to take away our guns, but what is the difference if the "National Militia" can?

They can't take away your guns if you already have them. They can however refuse to sell you guns until you join your local militia and go through the proper procedure.

The point is that on the one hand, we have a centralised, properly regulated system. Less loonies buying guns, less dodgy gun sales, more weapon awareness and discipline (and a better understanding of what the second amendment is all about). On the other hand, we keep the control and distribution of civilian weapons outside of government hands, and put it in the hands of people who know and understand firearms and the importance of the right to bear arms. Of course, this organisation will still be subject to the rule of law, but if legislation against the right to bear arms ever went too far, it would be a powerful check against it.

Here's my problem with this, if I understand correctly:
This would give an unelected non government (presumably profit) body the ability to effectively make laws and regulations to decide who gets to buy guns, and who doesn't, and how difficult it would be to go through the proper procedure in order to join the militia.

I see a lot of room for corruption there, especially since they are an unelected law making body, that stands to make a profit.
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #503 on: July 21, 2009, 06:08:04 PM »
Quote from: Ragnarr on July 21, 2009, 05:59:34 PM
I see a lot of room for corruption there, especially since they are an unelected law making body, that stands to make a profit.
Enjoy your stay in the US of A.
Logged
?

Anteater7171

  • 9408
  • +0/-0
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #504 on: July 21, 2009, 06:27:11 PM »
Lord Wilmore, why would we go to all that effort? The system in America already works well, there is no need to fix it.
Logged
Quote from: Muphci on August 14, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #505 on: July 21, 2009, 06:36:38 PM »
Quote from: Anteater7171 on July 21, 2009, 06:27:11 PM
Lord Wilmore, why would we go to all that effort? The system in America already works well, there is no need to fix it.

The system in America works well in terms of access to guns and creating controversy, but I don't think it works well if you get a government that gets heavy on legislation. This system would provide a powerful check against such legislation whilst at the same time appeasing those who feel the system is too flimsy as is.

I believe in the idea of a people that can oppose the government if need be. A National Militia provides a structure for that. This isn't about making it easier or harder for anyone to get hold of a large gun because they want to shoot cans. It's about protecting the right of citizens to bear arms and empowering them to be able to challenge any oppressive government.

I guarantee you that some day, under the current system, you will lose your right to bear arms in any meaningful sense. Bit by bit, school shooting by school shooting, it will be eroded. A regulated National Militia that is independent of the government would help to prevent that. The very fact that on a conceptual level it accords so well with the constitution would make its existence hard to oppose or legislate against.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #506 on: July 22, 2009, 12:38:27 AM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: Anteater7171 on July 21, 2009, 06:27:11 PM
Lord Wilmore, why would we go to all that effort? The system in America already works well, there is no need to fix it.

The system in America works well in terms of access to guns and creating controversy, but I don't think it works well if you get a government that gets heavy on legislation. This system would provide a powerful check against such legislation whilst at the same time appeasing those who feel the system is too flimsy as is.

I believe in the idea of a people that can oppose the government if need be. A National Militia provides a structure for that. This isn't about making it easier or harder for anyone to get hold of a large gun because they want to shoot cans. It's about protecting the right of citizens to bear arms and empowering them to be able to challenge any oppressive government.

I guarantee you that some day, under the current system, you will lose your right to bear arms in any meaningful sense. Bit by bit, school shooting by school shooting, it will be eroded. A regulated National Militia that is independent of the government would help to prevent that. The very fact that on a conceptual level it accords so well with the constitution would make its existence hard to oppose or legislate against.

I can't quite get on board here.  In the days of the Minutemen - hell, even as late as the 40's, essentially, unless the government wanted to start mortaring or shelling your home, the weaponry you had was similar to what they had.  Since 1968, and especially over the last 10-20 years, that has become less and less the case.  At this point, the only real way to reestablish the capability of the American People to retake control of the country from a corrupt government is to establish a citizen army.

The concept of a private militia being allowed to operate within the US is untenable.  One with the authority to make decisions about private firearms ownership is somehow both frightening and laughable.  The reality of the situation is that in light of the current disparity between military and private weaponry, no non-military militia would have any credibility against even the FBI or BATFE, much less the National Guard.  The only real solution to getting the Second back to its intended purpose is the citizen army.
Logged
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #507 on: July 22, 2009, 04:24:23 AM »
Note: in this model citizens would still be able to buy as many weapons and as many types of weapon as they can now, and will have the right to bear those arms and keep them at home. A National Militia wuld simply serve as a regulation and distribution centre. In other words, it would supplement the idea of the 'citizen army', not replace it.


Honestly, I want to hear criticism, so if you have criticisms to make, please make them! I'm not exactly satking my reputation on this =)
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #508 on: July 22, 2009, 04:07:53 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 22, 2009, 04:24:23 AM
Note: in this model citizens would still be able to buy as many weapons and as many types of weapon as they can now, and will have the right to bear those arms and keep them at home. A National Militia wuld simply serve as a regulation and distribution centre. In other words, it would supplement the idea of the 'citizen army', not replace it.

I still have no idea what possible benefit or purpose it could have.  The people who can buy firearms legally do so in gun stores, those who can't or don't want to, buy them on the black market.  Under your plan, the same is true, but you rename gun stores 'The Militia' as if it means something in that context.

If you have a citizen army, there can be no militia.  The militia has become the army.  If Americans spend their 18th or 19th years of life, or both, learning the basics, with those who have the aptitude and the desire becoming more active personnel, and every citizen has their basic deployment gear in their closet at home, what point is there in continuing to restrict the availability of less effective weapons within that group?  In other words, if everyone has a fully automatic M4, ammunition, body armor and a few grenades, what possible purpose would there for a private paramilitary group administrating access to the semi-automatic AR-15?


Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 22, 2009, 04:24:23 AM
Honestly, I want to hear criticism, so if you have criticisms to make, please make them! I'm not exactly satking my reputation on this =)

Huh?  I don't mean the typo.  Seriously, WTF is this supposed to mean?
Logged
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #509 on: July 22, 2009, 04:15:29 PM »
Quote from: Jesus Crotch on July 22, 2009, 04:07:53 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 22, 2009, 04:24:23 AM
Honestly, I want to hear criticism, so if you have criticisms to make, please make them! I'm not exactly satking my reputation on this =)

Huh?  I don't mean the typo.  Seriously, WTF is this supposed to mean?

It means it's an idea, and in internet parlance I'm not going to get 'butthurt' if you don't agree with it. I thought it was a pretty clear statement (typo aside) =/


The purpose is that currently many parts of society are crying out for greater and greater regulation and more and more restrictions on the sale of weapons. This will in time erode the second amendment. An independent 'National Militia' answers that whilst at the same time protecting the rights of the citizen to own and bear arms.

I think you're getting confused over what I'm saying, and perhaps I haven't been clear enough. By a 'National Militia' I am not suggesting a paramilitary army. I am basically talking about a national organisation of gun clubs which also serve as the point of purchase for arms. They would serve as the point of access and after that as a forum for the nation's armed citizenry.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 67   Go Up
« previous next »