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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.