Skip to comments.Firearm standards welcome
Posted on 02/05/2014 10:41:19 PM PST by rktman
I am told that enterprising sheriffs of the Wild West, fed up with the violence and lawlessness that often visited their towns, would ban the carrying of weapons inside the town limits. Visitors to the town would be asked to surrender their guns, with the promise that their hardware would be returned when they were ready to leave town.
Perhaps the common sense of those early days is still pertinent in these troubled times, when 9- and 10-year-old kids can be blown away in the sanctity of their classrooms, and when a congresswoman visiting a mall to mingle with constituents, or moviegoers enjoying the magic of a cinema experience, can be cut down by deranged gunmen.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegram.com ...
Lay some of that Clive jive on me, brother.
Haven’t the majority of places that so-called mass shootings have occurred in the last half century been “Gun Free Zones?” So, Jive Clive, you’re fifty years too late with your suggestion and it’s worked out to be a multiplier of murder not a reducer.
The places where mass shootings happen already run that way.
I have read every single headline on the latest articles page. You wanna know how many of them are relevent or newsworthy or of importance to any but wee few are?
NONE. Not a damn one worth a comment or worth even a second thought. Banging your head off a stone wall because it feels so good when it stops doesn’t work anymore.
Do we really need any more examples of how stupid anti-gunners are? Do we really care what some Pierce Morgan wanna-bee thinks?
And thus didst start the foundation of our modern gun grabbing liberals. I really don’t think that would have worked out very well, but to be generous to our dear liberals, if they can produce evidence the disarming of the honest actually DID work, versus the outlaw who would just carry it in (no metal detectors at that time), I’d reconsider.
Poorly written column. I was never sure what country he was talking about.
The topic is a good one because there is always a need for a “basic standard” for most things or there would be anarchy. However, in England, people are “blown” away on buses and subways, so there should also be a standard on who is allowed to have explosives, n’est pas?
I know that the last sentence was nonsensical, but it follows the illogic of the writer. He never explains what a “standard” is and how it would have to be defined re “gun control or licensing”.
By the way, parts of England have “no go” zones for police unless there are 2-3 of them, often armed. Gee, Merry Old England isn’t so merry anymore, is it?
Why not have a uniform standard for the first amendment as well.
Prove you are capable of associating with other citizens and we’ll let you off the reservation.
Prove you are capable of associating with “Correct Citizens”.
Prove your religious beliefs, the sect you belong to and your are “reasonable, common sense and absolutely not injurious to anothers feelings.
Prove your penmenship, thoughts expressed in writing are those of a “Correct Citizen”.
On the 3rd amendment:
A “Correct Citizen”would wholly support their nation and armed forces.
As such, why wouldn’t you allow federal, state and local agent access to your domicile for the purpose of housing, feeding and providing facilities to maintain hygene?
You are an American, aren’t you?
On the 4th amendment....
You get the idea?
Your rights are sacrosanct and “the right of the people, shall not be infringed”.
The Bill of Rights presumes your God given rights are immune from government oversight, license or restriction until or unless you prove otherwise incapable of excersising those rights without violating natural law or the rights of others.
The 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens from a despotic or even democratic form of government, which will always seek greater power and control of the citizen, while centralizing their authority through an ever growing government.
What you are proposing is insane.
We’ve seen your movie before and I cannot bear to ever watch “Schindlers List” again.
You seek a perfect solution in an imperfect world.
The only realistic way to enforce your ideal would be a complete eviseration of the Bill of Rights, as your proxies(government agents) go door to door and search, by threat of force, every house, business, farm, wharehouse and automobile to remove any and all weapons.
You are wrong.
Depotic rule became passe July 4th, 1776 and Fascism was also proven time and again an anethma to humanity and an utter failure.
More liberal legal historicism... “they had laws like this... there are french laws like that... damn historical truth or if it was constitutionl or not”
And I am sure some cities still had slavery also back then etc...
Indeed. Uniform it is. Read my tag line for the sarcasm in how liberals read the second amendement.
The only way I could see it kind of making sense, is if that city got to be known as a mecca for duels. I can very well see even the most conservative sheriff then saying “Not here, gentlemen, this city is a no-duel zone.” But if that were the case, would our dear liberals tell us? Probably not.
I’ll bet “Little Bill” in Unforgivien is a liberal, and Clint is a conservative. A corrupt sheriff would fit right in Obamas America.
I know there were so many different hadji governments changes in Yemen, they have such a ban in the militarized city of Sanaa. However the historicism of the liberals will always ignore the cases of bandits smuggling in weapons into such cities or the obvious fact that surrounding country side did mandate to have a weapon to survive which in no way turned the Sheriff into a Federal Bloomberg.
There simply is no equivalency of politization of the cause as it is done today.
.... a Federal Bloomberg.
There simply is no equivalency of politization of the cause as it is done today.
... and liberals are using lies and strawman arguments again and again, comparing Apples and Oranges.
It wouldn’t be the same. There’s no need to play coy with these supposed counter examples. Make the most of them.
In fact... my somewhat wry mind (but that does help my creativity a bit, and in fact I find God Himself has a wry sense of humor) says... hmmm... standards... what are they originally... flags... yeah let’s flag um down....
Or, when the power of darkness comes in like a flood, the Lord will raise up a “standard” (again in the sense of a flag, to rally around in this case).
Tell our dear liberals to revere the Prince of Peace, and use their great liberal advertising powers to try to persuade everyone else to do the same, and sure ‘nuff, we’ll then get lots of peace!
Well, there is a case in the Bible for exile to Babylon encouraged by the prophets themselves because it was the only way to teach Israel its errors, sending it back to Egypt.
I definitely think that the liberal parts of America should be seceded or treated differently. They clearly have lost their rights and due process would show that. However to make it PC or satisfy political greed, those new slave states are at it again, claiming “Southern Independence” when in fact they want hegemony.
Well, we really don’t get to pick what covenant God is raising to our attention when we get a bold statement that “God now commands all men everywhere to repent” — and that in a clear gospel context. The only way to deal with that is either to obey or else to at least have SOME intellectual consistency and chuck the entire New Testament and Jesus out.
Folks who don’t get the role of the Old Testament as shadow and try to wish it literally on a country like America, might as well want us to compute using alphabet blocks. Incidentally, most of the books we call the gospels outline the life of Jesus during a pre-crucifixion ministry in which He showed He could live up to the Law that nobody else could. But that old wineskin proved ultimately to be incapable of containing His new wine.
True. It goes back to historicism. You cannot practice a restrictive law in a vacuum without care to the why or historical background to said law. The Old Testament speaks to whomever resurected Israel through 40 years wandering in the desert of iniquity into a new fresh generation.
The bringing of false charges against God because He was vulnerable in the flesh thus spake volume as to what this generation did not understand yet about God and soul that was truly more profound and intended throughout the Old Testament. Egyptian tyranny was only a material milder manifestation of the battle going on inside one’s soul which was much more cosmic, and that only that particular resurection was true, whereas the law would be applied just to make it materially but without personal meaning.
Liberals are like that, however, as they want some imposed government law on themselves to help them get by despite their evil. They are like the smoker who wants antismoking laws so that they will not die from smoking, though their soul is definitely smoking. They hope that science is this thing which will give them the technology to smoke without the harmful effects. They just want the marching orders of the day reminded to them in a teleprompter without having to bother to honor or understand why. They clearly do not want to be burdened the way we would. They want the formulas, the answers to each problem, but reject the independent mind capable of thinking up the solutions of said formulas in the first place.
However if a material restriction helps one understand Christ, let people impose on themselves their own Old Testament restriction. What is obsolete or seen as archaic is not necesssarily wrong (just like Black and White TV is not wrong in the technological sense, even if not fully fulfilling the role of the tube to its fullest.)
Gun grabbers gun free zones entice the criminals. Double koolaid for everyone.
Historical note (not as far back): Marshal Matt Dillon in “Gunsmoke” would take the guns from people in Dodge City based on just his own concern, both on the radio show and on TV. I don’t know if law enforcement actually did that, but even when I was young it bothered me. I wonder if the writers were working even back then to delegitimize firearms in private hands. I’d have to check a lot to see if that happened often in real life.
“The topic is a good one because there is always a need for a basic standard for most things or there would be anarchy.”
See now I read that as 22 cal, 25 cal, 32 cal, 38 cal, 9mm, 40 cal, 45 cal. Standards are required. (Oh, there are at least two 9mm. One is 1 1/16 and one is 1 3/16 my Kahr doesn’t like the taller stuff. I have to measure it before loading.)
“Lay some of that Clive jive on me, brother.”
It figures,”way out West,” is “the western reaches of Mass of Two $hits” Another “Holder’s Person” stinking up that worthless state! You’d never hear “To Arms, To Arms the British are coming” there today, rather some “Somali newspaper columnist” ranting about the shame of it that there area any guns around at all.
To quote the prosecutions “star” witness in the GZ trial: “That’s retardet sir.” ;>} (I know what type of “uniform” this asshat should be wearing.)
People names Clive should only be allowed to comment on British law...
People named Clive...
He’s just lucky we have the constitution to prevent the government from interfering with our rights. Hmmm. Something seems to be amiss here. Oh yeah. The Bill of Rights only protects what libs want it to protect. Kind of like the constitution guarantees a womans right to have an abortion. Hmmm. That’s not in there? WTH? Somebody been lyin’.
The truth of the old West was that by the time a town was large enough to have two streets, it would divide into the good side of town and the bad side of town. And the larger the town got, the greater the contrast between these two sides.
Gunfights were almost exclusively in the bad part of town. The typical gunfight was of a drunk challenging a bartender to come out on the street. For his part, the bartender would grab a shotgun, leave by the backdoor and emerge behind the drunk, to the drunk’s detriment.
And while towns went to great lengths to keep people from having guns, the same result happened that exists today in places like Chicago. Only the honest people would surrender their guns.
Damn. Now I’m a criminal. Or at least “not and honest person”. ;>}
We already have firearm standards, SAAMI
They used to tell the newspapers what to print too.
Maybe Clive wants to give up his lappy-top when he hits the city limits. ‘Course we’d have to check the websites he visits, any secrets he might be harboring, just whom he has been emailing and why. His phone too, for that matter.
We’ll treat the 1st Amendment as carefully as the 2nd.
It isn’t like black and white TV. It’s like busting the tube and the hero in the movie steps out and greets you.