Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Common Sense Gun Laws
Marktwain | 30 January, 2011 | Marktwain

Posted on 01/30/2011 5:06:22 AM PST by marktwain

As the phrase “Common Sense Gun Laws” has been so overused by the MSM as a means to try to enact every type of intrusive, incremental type of restriction and gun ban that the anti-freedom collective wishes to impose on free citizens, I thought it would be interesting to hear Freepers ideas on what real common sense gun laws would be. I have come up with a few ideas for starters:

1. Eliminate sales taxes on guns if the buyer shows that they have passed a gun safety course.

2. Eliminate the Federal restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms suppressors, as a public health measure to reduce hearing loss and a way to reduce noise pollution.

3. Eliminate the prohibition on "short" rifles and shotguns. It makes no sense for common self defense tools such as a Glock with a standard magazine of 17 rounds to be Constitutionaly protected, but the simple possession of a single shot .22 rifle with a barrel of 15.9 inches is a federal felony!

4. Eliminate customs duties on firearms purchased outside the U.S. For private use.

5. Bring back the time honored tradition of “war trophies” so that U.S. Personnel serving overseas can bring back firearms obtained in the service of our country. This common practice was stopped by the first president Bush during the Gulf war.


TOPICS: Education; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; commonsense; constitution; gunlaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
Just a few ideas about what is really common sense.
1 posted on 01/30/2011 5:06:25 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

ANOTHER reason I didn’t like the Bushes.
Forgot this one.


2 posted on 01/30/2011 5:15:03 AM PST by Flintlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

How about eliminating the BATFE (”revenooers”) altogether.

Now there’s some common sense for you.

Maybe they can exist as a research and forensic facility, with *NO* police, tax collecting, or regulatory powers, to aid local and state authorities with investigations.

And they should drop lcohol and Tobacco thing altogether. Who cares if Joe Sixpack is brewing his own in his bathtup or if farmer Jones is making Redeye behind the barn.


3 posted on 01/30/2011 5:21:17 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Repeal the 1986 ban on full autos, repeal GOA of 68 and repeal the GOA of 34 all as unconsituional limits on firearm ownership.

Guns are too the sencond amendment. As Newspapers,Bibles,Korans,TV,radio and political speed is to the first.

4 posted on 01/30/2011 5:26:32 AM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

the first one needs modification.

no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....


5 posted on 01/30/2011 5:31:51 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Drop all firearm specific laws. Including what, when, where, and how a person can carry.

Commission of a crime using a firearm results in double the sentence.

6 posted on 01/30/2011 5:38:39 AM PST by CPOSharky (Posted with 100% recycled electrons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

“no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....” WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says “a well regulated militia” I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.


7 posted on 01/30/2011 5:42:41 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The problem is that the gun grabbers do everything with the ultimate goal of eliminating weapons altogether.

They see every gain as nothing but an increment bringing them closer to the absolute prohibition they want.

If you start believing them when they talk about "reasonable gun control" they will roll right over you.

8 posted on 01/30/2011 5:45:09 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

You are exactly correct. This was one of the things that I was trying to point out.


9 posted on 01/30/2011 5:47:36 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....

I'm kinda torn on this one. Overall, I think the letter and spirit of "Shall not be infringed" can be met, while at the same time ensuring that people who are excercising that right can do so without being a negligent danger to themselves and others.

I've taught a few new gun owners to shoot over the years. It's downright terrifying to me that they were otherwise just going to pick up their weapon and toss it in the nightstand. No idea how to handle it, maintain it, or fire it. I know a lot of us might bristle at the idea, especially for those of us that were taught firearm safety long before we knew how to drive. Still, there's lots of folks that really need some good fundamental training first.

10 posted on 01/30/2011 5:48:07 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....” WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says “a well regulated militia” I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.

Only if you are a member of the armed forces. You have a right to weapons without being a member of an organized force.


11 posted on 01/30/2011 5:49:30 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Eliminate the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and any other federal gun laws. Then collapse the non-gun functions of BATFE into appropriate agencies, and disband the remainder. That would make a good start.


12 posted on 01/30/2011 5:50:50 AM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

WRONG AGAIN...The Second Amendment was made because WE ALL were (and are) members of the Militia. YOU need to get involved in US Constitutional History.


13 posted on 01/30/2011 5:52:18 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

The government cannot require training in order to exercise a fundamental right.

This is why I suggested that government supply and incentive for training by eliminating sales tax for gun purchases for those who can show that they have been trained. The government is not restraining your rights in that case.


14 posted on 01/30/2011 5:53:51 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Make them admit right up front that they are either truly phobic or a statist control freak.

I've been involved in the debate the last 54 years of my life, all the discussion becomes endless without all the cards on the table.

They will eventually ban pointed shish kebab sticks if they can, most of them are either evil, stupid or just plain crazy.

15 posted on 01/30/2011 5:56:01 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Yes, all people capable of bearing arms are members of the unorganized militia. That does not mean that they are all trained, or that training can be required of all of them. It simply means that they are available to become part of the organized militia.


16 posted on 01/30/2011 5:56:12 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

I understand your concerns...I am a Single Action Shooting Society range officer...I was introduced to shooting 55 years ago at age 6 by my father, a WW2 Marine and a NYPD officer...and he tought me the basics...and I passed that on to my kids and newbies I take to the range, or hunting(some people never learn too...one friend owns the land I hunt on, and if he didnt own it...I would not shoot with him...).

but I believe if you put caveats on what and how you own, shoot, carry.....you have damaged the constitution...


17 posted on 01/30/2011 6:05:50 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The government cannot require training in order to exercise a fundamental right.

Sure it can. Even the exercise of 'free' speech is taxed, licensed and regulated, depending upon the medium through which it is passed.

The idea of being part of a well regulated militia is the implied 'competent' bearing of arms.

A group of small children or autistic adults carrying weapons is not a militia. A group of able bodied adults who have weapons and know how to use them is a militia. Some level of competency at the use of arms is a fundamental requirement to meet the definition of 'well regulated militia'.

18 posted on 01/30/2011 6:10:01 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

EXCELLENT!


19 posted on 01/30/2011 6:20:32 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

“The idea of being part of a well regulated militia is the implied ‘competent’ bearing of arms.”

A citizen is not required to be part of a “well regulated militia” in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to make the formation of a well regulated militia possible.


20 posted on 01/30/2011 6:26:22 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

“The government cannot require training in order to exercise a fundamental right.”

“Sure it can.”

You are correct, sir. I should have said: “The government *may* not require training in order to exercise a fundamental right.”

It is a common mistake to fail to differentiate between what an entity *may* do and what they *can* do. I am sorry to have fallen prey to the common error.


21 posted on 01/30/2011 6:30:58 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Still, there's lots of folks that really need some good fundamental training first.

There is a simple solution to that - add "firearms safety" to the list of topics required by state law to be taught in schools. Right now most states list things like "physical education", "health", "reading" etc.

Liberal teacher's unions will squawk endlessly, but how can anyone argue that teaching every child how to safely handle a firearm wouldn't benefit our nation?

For young students the teaching could be simple, and oriented to the firearms equivalent of "abstinence".

For older students, more detailed teaching would be appropriate, like techniques for ensuring a weapon's chamber is cleared, or unjamming a misfiring semiautomatic pistol safely. Kind of like the way "health" classes teach students about "safe" sex in high school.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to couple the teaching with gun ownership rights. Why not just teach everyone how to safely handle a firearm?

22 posted on 01/30/2011 6:42:43 AM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We’ve lost touch with the “gun culture” when we moved from the rural life style to the urban. Training is important. I was trained by my father, but also have taken formalized training in personal defense. The problem with requiring training is it’s still in the hands of the government.

Here are some common sense gun laws:

All guns are always loaded.

Keep your finger off of the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.

Do not point the muzzle at anything you do not wish to destroy.

Know your surroundings and backstop.

Identify your target before you shoot.


23 posted on 01/30/2011 7:00:06 AM PST by stansblugrassgrl (PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!! YEEEEEHAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stansblugrassgrl

Here’s another common sense gun law (and the only one that matters):

“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!”

Our freedom, our “free state”, is secured by the second amendment. The power-hungry democrat thugs hate that and want to eliminate it. Sadly, some carrying the Republican flag agree.


24 posted on 01/30/2011 7:05:03 AM PST by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
A citizen is not required to be part of a “well regulated militia” in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to make the formation of a well regulated militia possible.

The militia, in the 18th century sense of the word, is not something that is created. It exists at all times in the form of armed, competent, able bodied citizens living in society, but who have the potential to defend their land in time of crisis. That's why those unable to bear arms responsibly (children, the mentally unsound, criminals) don't bear arms legally. Remember,

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.

This means that in order to defend the security of a free state, there must be pool of competent (well regulated), suitably armed (not be infringed) and able bodied citizens (the militia).

So, there is no reason why the government couldn't require training for firearm ownership, and if you want to get technical, there is good reason why it should.

25 posted on 01/30/2011 7:08:12 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
So, there is no reason why the government couldn't require training for firearm ownership, and if you want to get technical, there is good reason why it should.

Actually, there is a good reason why the government should NOT require training for gun ownership. You cannot secure a FREE STATE while simultaneously allowing the government to dictate the criteria for gun ownership, for the government is the antonym of freedom. The second amendment is there to protect the people from the government - it is the ultimate check to maintain the balance of power.

As we witness the actions of the Obama administration and the democRATS (and some Republicans) in general, its purpose is becoming very clear.

26 posted on 01/30/2011 7:15:07 AM PST by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing
There is a simple solution to that - add "firearms safety" to the list of topics required by state law to be taught in schools. Right now most states list things like "physical education", "health", "reading" etc. Liberal teacher's unions will squawk endlessly, but how can anyone argue that teaching every child how to safely handle a firearm wouldn't benefit our nation?

No complaint here. I'd be happy to push all high school students through basic training. That would more effectively create the militia the Founding Fathers envisioned.

People are looking at 'training' as though it's some kind of restriction. It's not. A bunch of individuals running around with guns are a mob.

The Founders didn't want a mob. They wanted a well regulated militia. The regulation they were talking about wasn't to restrict magazine capacity or 15.9 inch barrels. Regulation meant military regimentation. In other words, training. They wanted armed bands of citizens to be equal to armed units of enemy troops, foreign or domestic.

We're so gun-shy, pardon the expression, about any 2nd Amendment issues, that we instantly recoil from any perceived infringement, and we often forget what the Founders were up to when they wrote it in. ;-)

27 posted on 01/30/2011 7:17:33 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: meyer
You cannot secure a FREE STATE while simultaneously allowing the government to dictate the criteria for gun ownership, for the government is the antonym of freedom.

Absolutely, you can, and you should. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution than violent, murdering ex-convicts can't own Mossberg shotguns. How are mental patients supposed to defend the free state without AR15s? Why doesn't little Billy's public school kindergarten class have access to Glocks?

What are you, some kind of gun grabber? Give Billy a Glock with his juice and cookies, you statist thug! ;-)

Government is a necessary evil. Or, as George Washington put it, it is like fire. Either a fearful servant or a dangerous master. Even though the government is trying to put its 'dangerous master' pants on, its proper role is to regulate the well regulated militia as our 'fearful servant'.

28 posted on 01/30/2011 7:35:44 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A few bits.

1) Sales taxes are State taxes, so up to the States to mitigate.

2) Suppressors should be a State issue as well.

3) Short weapons need to be moved to the concealed weapons arguments, unless safety issues are involved, which could be the case since these weapons and their ammo were not engineered for a short barrel.

4) I can see a purpose in a modest customs duty, as weapons have to be inspected before admission, or export.

5) “War trophies” are no longer permitted because of the possibility of deadly mischief, such as machining weapons from radioactive metal, chemical contamination, dangerous defects, etc., as well as the risks involved in transporting them back to the US.


29 posted on 01/30/2011 7:50:25 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

You have a couple of extra commas in your version of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads:

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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070630135433/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

If the government can impose training requirements in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, it can eliminate the right by making the training requirements extremely difficult. That is why training may not be required.


30 posted on 01/30/2011 7:50:31 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
“5) “War trophies” are no longer permitted because of the possibility of deadly mischief, such as machining weapons from radioactive metal, chemical contamination, dangerous defects, etc., as well as the risks involved in transporting them back to the US.”

What nonsense. All of those risks are easily avoided or are minuscule compared to other risks that are routinely accepted. The real purpose of delegitimizing war trophies is to further delegitimize civilian gun ownership and the United States gun culture.

31 posted on 01/30/2011 7:58:03 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
"I'm kinda torn on this one. Overall, I think the letter and spirit of "Shall not be infringed" can be met, while at the same time ensuring that people who are excercising that right can do so without being a negligent danger to themselves and others."

The meaning of "Shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit. Of course the founders' stated objective of the 2nd Amendment was a "well-regulated militia," meaning well-trained and adept at the use of arms. While I would concur that government has no role in setting or establishing training requirements, the right to keep and bear arms is like any other right in that it is morally imperative that an individual who exercises a given right do so responsibly and with respect to the rights of others.

32 posted on 01/30/2011 7:59:59 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“1) Sales taxes are State taxes, so up to the States to mitigate.”

Yes, you are correct. I never said anything to indicate anything different. Your point is?


33 posted on 01/30/2011 8:04:38 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“2) Suppressors should be a State issue as well.”

I disagree. Suppressors are as much “arms” as are stocks and ammunition. They should be protected under the federal Constitution from State infringements.


34 posted on 01/30/2011 8:06:55 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....” WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says “a well regulated militia” I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.

NOPE!! The well regulated language is NOT a dependent clause. In other words, the right to keep and bear does not depend upon the well regulated part. Leftists have found that to be a problem for decades, although their judges and political hacks generally ignore it.


35 posted on 01/30/2011 8:07:35 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
“4) I can see a purpose in a modest customs duty, as weapons have to be inspected before admission, or export.”

Inspections are not commonly charged for importation of used personal property purchased while outside the United States. I would not have a problem though, if the charge were a simple flat fee of $10 or less.

As Arms are Constitutionally protected private property, our importation policies should give them special preference in deference to the Constitution.

36 posted on 01/30/2011 8:10:20 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“WRONG AGAIN...The Second Amendment was made because WE ALL were (and are) members of the Militia. YOU need to get involved in US Constitutional History”

Well regulated just means that there is to be one.


37 posted on 01/30/2011 8:11:20 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: meyer

I believe the words “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” should all be capitalized indicating the words should be taken together because when grouped together they convey a concept with a particular meaning (a definition if you will).

There’s a lot of comment about the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, not so much about “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” and the scope of those words.


38 posted on 01/30/2011 8:11:44 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; US Navy Vet; All
Here is the definitive English analysis of the Second Amendment:

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/RKBA/2ndengl.html

39 posted on 01/30/2011 8:13:02 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If the government can impose training requirements in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, it can eliminate the right by making the training requirements extremely difficult. That is why training may not be required.

Abuse is always a concern, but that's akin to saying, "Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, the power to levy a 1% tax rate is potentially the same as a 100% tax rate. Since that would be abusive, no tax rate may be required."

The idea that the government could take an enumerated power to the extreme and abuse it is always a concern, but not automatic grounds for an exemption.

Besides, what would qualify as extremely difficult? A 2 day safety class? Going through a government provided 'basic training'? A week of annual mandatory training at Blackwater? God help them if they required that level of expertise out of your average gun owner.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I'd be happy to push high school students through some form of generic military training. Having the average citizen able to operate competently as an individual and as a unit would be far better for the security of the free state.

What would-be tyrant would dare, knowing that not only behind every blade of grass lies a rifle, but that behind each lawn lies interlocking fields of fire? That, I believe, is the militia the Founders envisioned.

40 posted on 01/30/2011 8:33:51 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet; Steel Wolf
no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....? WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says ?a well regulated militia? I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.

You are both wrong in claiming that the first part of the 2nd Amendment, dealing with a well-regulated militia, has anything to do with some power to compel people to train and reach some level of skill before being allowed to own arms (not FIREARMS, mind you, but ARMS - a term encompassing far more than rifles, pistols and shotguns...but that is a different debate).

Why are you both wrong? Simple:

First, the 2nd grants nothing, government doesn't grant rights to us as it pleases. It is a specific restriction on governmental power. Not that government has the power to regulate arms for ordinary citizens anyway, but the 2nd is a specific safeguard of liberties (keeping and bearing arms) that are deemed essential to the people retaining their overall liberties.

2) The militia clause in the 2nd is not the operative clause, it a mere statement of a purpose. Having a well-regulated (i.e. trained) militia is the essential goal (it is necessary for a free state). By itself it is meaningless. Note that the 2nd could state, "The Moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - and we'd still have the RKBA. However, the Founders viewed that as impossible unless the population was armed and familiar with weapons to begin with. As such, disarming the populace was forbidden for the express purpose of ensuring that there would always be a large pool of people who were familiar with arms and who could also bring their own arms for militia duty (as was the custom here then, and in Switzerland (on whose system ours was modeled) to this day.

Children, mental incompetents and violent criminals are deemed to have a disability that makes their control over arms dangerous to others and society, thus making prohibitions on them reasonable and, hence, Constitutional.

Letting the government set training standards on the right to keep and bear arms is an invitation for abuse. What if the standard is hitting a pie plate at 1,000 yards? That is a recipe for prohibition, and has nothing to do with regulating the militia. That task occurs WITHIN the militia, not prior to or after one leaves service therein.

Gentlemen, where in the body of the Constitution or in the 2nd is the right to keep and bear arms limited to those who are sufficiently trained? Your argument actually quite unoriginal, and it was easily disposed of during the debate in Congress on the 2nd. The text had been inserted about it not applying to those who had a religious problem (the term was "religiously scrupulous") with military service (meaning Quakers at the time). The clause was tossed out, leaving us with the existing 2nd, when a general consensus arose that government intent on tyranny could deem all of its opponents to have such a religious objection and thereby prohibit them arms. What you speak of is a similar government-set (and abusable) standard, which is equally unacceptable.

41 posted on 01/30/2011 9:04:53 AM PST by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Here is the definitive English analysis of the Second Amendment:”

I did not find in that, an analysis of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The words are used as a group several times, but as far as I saw, the meaning of that group of words is not addressed.


42 posted on 01/30/2011 9:06:22 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Marktwain posted:

“What nonsense.”

Forgive me sir, I am usually more careful in my usage. I should have posted:

These concerns do not make good sense.

Post in haste, regret at leisure.

43 posted on 01/30/2011 9:27:18 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

Well, technically since the 18th Amendment, which authorized the federal government regulatory & enforcement power, was repealed in its entirety by the 21st Amendment is stands to reason that all non-tax/non-duty federal-laws regarding alcohol are invalid.


44 posted on 01/30/2011 9:28:43 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

>Absolutely, you can, and you should. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution than violent, murdering ex-convicts can’t own Mossberg shotguns. How are mental patients supposed to defend the free state without AR15s? Why doesn’t little Billy’s public school kindergarten class have access to Glocks?
>
>What are you, some kind of gun grabber? Give Billy a Glock with his juice and cookies, you statist thug! ;-)

Ah, but you’ve hit upon an excellent mechanism for gun confiscation here. Most people do not think there is anything wrong with forever stripping a felon of his right to keep and bear arms even after he has served his sentence. Yet, Obamacare makes it a FELONY for an individual not to have “qualifying” health-insurance; there are no exceptions for unemployment or extensions for, say, even a single day of non-coverage for someone transitioning from one policy to another. {Also note the ever-increasing unemployment.}

I think it not at all unreasonable to assume that tens of thousands — and perhaps millions — will become ineligible to own firearms in 2014 when Obamacare comes into effect.


45 posted on 01/30/2011 9:46:52 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I appreciate that. I do enjoy your posts.

That being said, I cannot find a reference to anyone using radioactive metal to make guns, which is odd because I’m pretty sure I saw some references to it a while back. I do know that radioactive contamination in scrap is such that some junkyards, at least, monitor for it.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch09/cobalto.html

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2710/stories/20100521271002500.htm

I’m sure the thought has crossed the minds of many spooks that providing hot rifles to their enemies would help things along, as it were.


46 posted on 01/30/2011 10:06:08 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Children, mental incompetents and violent criminals are deemed to have a disability that makes their control over arms dangerous to others and society, thus making prohibitions on them reasonable and, hence, Constitutional.

Ah, so reasonble prohibitions are Constitutional?

I think it's perfectly reasonble that basic level of familiarization training on the safe and proficient use of a device that can accidentally kill the operator or an innocent bystander should be mandatory.

How are your three exemptions more reasonable?

(1) Children should not be allowed weapons? A trained teenager or child is less dangerous with a loaded weapon than an untrained adult, and more useful militarily. Where do you think the word 'infantry' comes from?

(2) What if the state decides that you're depressed, or confused, because you don't like their policies, and declares you mentally incapable of owning a weapon? Don't worry, it's for your own good.

(3) "Ah, what's this in your record? A speeding ticket? Well, that's a crime in this town, friend. Looks like we can't trust you with that Kimber 1911, now can we?"

You seem perfectly fine with arbitrary, highly abusable rules in the actual 'shall not be infringed' section of keeping and bearing arms. So why protest a simple training requirement for the 'well regulated militia' part. No one is saying that requiring a gun safety or basic marksmanship class needs to come with a pass / fail block. This ain't the Army. "Oh, you only scored 15 out of 40, we're going to have to take that M1 Garand back."

What is the objection to requiring someone to sit through some familiarization instruction on how to take apart, clean and safely operate their firearm? I'm not even saying you can't have the gun, like you are with your 'reasonable and, hence, Constitutional' rules. Just show you've been taught how to use it.

47 posted on 01/30/2011 10:08:20 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Read the Second Amendment it says “a well regulated militia” I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.

"Well regulated" in those days meant "well equipped". I saw an article in a Civil War newspaper that reported "the Ohio (I think) regiment was well-regulated, being armed with Sharps breechloading rifles".

American English is a dynamic language and interpretation of words changes. "Gay Divorcee" would mean something different from when Fred and Ginger danced in that 1930s movie.

48 posted on 01/30/2011 10:22:20 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Letting the government set training standards on the right to keep and bear arms is an invitation for abuse. What if the standard is hitting a pie plate at 1,000 yards? That is a recipe for prohibition, and has nothing to do with regulating the militia. That task occurs WITHIN the militia, not prior to or after one leaves service therein.

I believe you are confusing the National Guard, which is a state run organization, with the well organized militia, which is the pool of able bodied, armed citizens able to stand up and defend their territory in time of need.

'Training standards' as such, are the thing of formal, standing armies, not informal militias. Although since the intent would be for the militia to combat any threat from a standing army on down, some level of equivalent training wouldn't hurt, even if it wasn't pass or fail.

What some would consider an unnecessary inconvenience would be magnify our 'anti-tyranny insurance' ten fold.

49 posted on 01/30/2011 10:22:39 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Absolutely, you can, and you should. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution than violent, murdering ex-convicts can't own Mossberg shotguns. How are mental patients supposed to defend the free state without AR15s? Why doesn't little Billy's public school kindergarten class have access to Glocks?

First, if someone is a violent murderer, they ought to still be imprisoned, not running around free among the responsible citizens. Second, there are other aspects of the constitution and established law which deal with those that are not sentient adults, including young children and the mentally disabled. In the case of children, it is up to the parents to decide when they can handle a firearm, even though the law (erroneously) limits handgun ownership to those of a certain age.

Government is a necessary evil. Or, as George Washington put it, it is like fire. Either a fearful servant or a dangerous master. Even though the government is trying to put its 'dangerous master' pants on, its proper role is to regulate the well regulated militia as our 'fearful servant'.

Government is the very entity for which the second amendment was written. It is ludicrous to think that giving the entity against which we should defend ourselves the ability to control access to the very tools with which that should be done. This is akin to giving the fox the authority to set up security for the hen house.

50 posted on 01/30/2011 11:24:07 AM PST by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson