Gun control brainstorming?

[JCricket]

A thought.

The right to bare arms is guaranteed in the consitution - some debate as to it meaning, but it is there.

The right to buy ammunition is not.

Out law premade or manufactured ammunition and control who can buy the supplies and tools to make ammunitions.

Just a thought like I said.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by JCricket

A thought.

The right to bare arms is guaranteed in the consitution - some debate as to it meaning, but it is there.

The right to buy ammunition is not.

Out law premade or manufactured ammunition and control who can buy the supplies and tools to make ammunitions.

Just a thought like I said.

Let's examine the 2nd Amendments text as ratified by the states in 1791:

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.

Until very recently, when the nine kings and queens of the US ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms without that first clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." getting in the way. So, effectively the the SCOTUS rewrote the Second amendment to read, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." completely ignoring the first half of the amendment.

A true "strict Constitutionalist would interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people could own a muzzle loaded rifle, pistol, or a blunderbuss to be called into service at anytime to serve in a "well regulated militia." The founding fathers never envisioned Glock "9's" with thirty round clips or AR15's with 100 round clips.

Don't kid yourself, the semi-auto assault style weapons can be more deadly than a fully automatic weapon. Even the modern military M-16 is no longer fully automatic, short burst or single shot only. If you have ever fired a full auto weapon, and I have, it is very difficult to control. It is fun though.

I am by no means an anti-gun nut. I have owned hundreds of firearms since I was eleven yeas old. I love to shoot. Many of my Liberal and Conservative friends love to hunt and shoot at the range with me.

In the Newtown shooting the weapons that belonged to the crazy survivalist mother should have never been accessible to her obviously mentally ill son. Owning all those weapons did not do a damn thing to save her life; did they?

There has to be some logical controls on high capacity clips. I think any clip should not hold more than seven shots. Pausing to reload in the most recent shooting could have saved lives. More heavy doors locked to protect the children in the pause between reloading and shooting. This psycho was not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. Reloading would have taken more time with smaller capacity clips.

Then we have to discuss the underlying problems with our society. The 20 year old MAN was living with his mother. He should have been out on his own, going to college, or working to provide for himself. The feeling of depression and worthlessness will drive people insane.

It is a fact that these mass killings have accelerated rapidly in the 2000's. This correlates with the massive income inequality and the lack of jobs for the disappearing middle class.

Income disparity has been proven in study after study that if monkeys, human children, apes, etc... are unfairly rewarded in their environment the losers tend to become violent.

A subject for another thread.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I didn't find his post uncivil. At least he he didn't call anybody out by name and try to make them look bad. I believe I said to try to be realistic also. Try to remember that when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.

"nobody should have to be told they are idiots or that their ideas are stupid."

Dave said "you fucking people are whacked"

Whacked is generally interpreted as either "crazy" or "assassinated".
Did you think Dave was telling us we'd been killed by a hit man?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.

"In summation; You people are fucking whacked and you're beginning to frighten me."

What, because of that? Note the smilie.() This means the comment was little more than a friendly jab at people in general, not a personal insult.

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

I own about a dozen guns from a couple of .22's, to a .223, a .270, three shotguns, 2 muzzleloaders, a older 38 Colt revolver, and some older relics. Not a single one is an autoloader. In fact, I've only owned one autoloader and it was a .22 Marlin and an unreliable, inaccurate POS that I quickly sold.

I think we could a long ways by prohibiting pistol ownership to all but those involved in the military and public safety. The general public, excluding criminals and the mentally ill, could own non-autoloading long arms with a maximum of 5 shot magazines (with mandatory background check and training). Everyone who wanted to could protect their home/property with a 12 gauge pump, the best home defense weapon there is, bar none.

Loaded weapons would only be allowed on one's private property, at licensed ranges, or in the field in the hands of licensed (and trained) hunters. Any violations would be severely punished.

This pretty much describes the gun laws in places like Canada, Australia and Western Europe and it works in reducing gun crime significantly. I have family in Canada and have lived 11 years in Germany. In neither place do people feel deprived of the right to bear arms under these restrictions. It still freaks me out a bit to see guns sold like bicycles at places like Walmart.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I own about a dozen guns from a couple of .22's, to a .223, a .270, three shotguns, 2 muzzleloaders, a older 38 Colt revolver, and some older relics. Not a single one is an autoloader. In fact, I've only owned one autoloader and it was a .22 Marlin and an unreliable, inaccurate POS that I quickly sold.

I think we could a long ways by prohibiting pistol ownership to all but those involved in the military and public safety. The general public, excluding criminals and the mentally ill, could own non-autoloading long arms with a maximum of 5 shot magazines (with mandatory background check and training). Everyone who wanted to could protect their home/property with a 12 gauge pump, the best home defense weapon there is, bar none.

Loaded weapons would only be allowed on one's private property, at licensed ranges, or in the field in the hands of licensed (and trained) hunters. Any violations would be severely punished.

This pretty much describes the gun laws in places like Canada, Australia and Western Europe and it works in reducing gun crime significantly. I have family in Canada and have lived 11 years in Germany. In neither place do people feel deprived of the right to bear arms under these restrictions. It still freaks me out a bit to see guns sold like bicycles at places like Walmart.

I'm pretty sure parts of Canada are like here in Alaska, and hunters are not the only ones packing heat. Anyone working or recreating in bear country is carrying, and lets just say many of you would not find some of these people "competent". Doesn't mean they should be denied the right to defend themselves, from bears or humans.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I'm pretty sure parts of Canada are like here in Alaska, and hunters are not the only ones packing heat. Anyone working or recreating in bear country is carrying, and lets just say many of you would not find some of these people "competent". Doesn't mean they should be denied the right to defend themselves, from bears or humans.

For the good of the rest of the nation and your own well-being, carry a slug-loaded 12 gauge pump or a .45-70 Guide Gun. It'll get a bear's attention, as opposed to that pop-gun you carry on your hip. A .44 Magnum to his center of mass will just make him more determined to kill you before he ultimately expires (with you in his belly). Plus, if you're out hunting, your rifle intended for moose will dispatch a bear far better than any pistol. Also, there are damn few people who are capable of accurately shooting a high caliber handgun, much less at a charging bear.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I'm pretty sure parts of Canada are like here in Alaska, and hunters are not the only ones packing heat. Anyone working or recreating in bear country is carrying, and lets just say many of you would not find some of these people "competent". Doesn't mean they should be denied the right to defend themselves, from bears or humans.

Ah, but they would be deprived of the right to drive into bear country until they demonstrated that they had the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Should the not also be deprived of the right to operate a firearm until they prove that they have the ability to safely do so?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Ah, but they would be deprived of the right to drive into bear country until they demonstrated that they had the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Should the not also be deprived of the right to operate a firearm until they prove that they have the ability to safely do so?

Regards,

D-Ray

Sounds logical, and I don't have any problem with CC licensing, got a permit myself. It's not an Alaska permit, because we have no requirement. Anyone can carry concealed here, yet (check the stats) our murder rate with firearms is way, way down the list, so the numbers don't support the notion.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Sounds logical, and I don't have any problem with CC licensing, got a permit myself. It's not an Alaska permit, because we have no requirement. Anyone can carry concealed here, yet (check the stats) our murder rate with firearms is way, way down the list, so the numbers don't support the notion.

Your total population is also way, way, down. Plus there is the survival of the community mentality in Alaska. Winters can be brutal and depressing.

I have also experienced this bonding when I lived in Northern Indiana in the late 70's. The Winters were brutal. We would walk to friends houses in four feet of snow in temps well below 0*F. We were snowed in for weeks with nothing but a stereo and two spotty UHF stations out of Indianapolis and Fort Wayne on the black and white TV. We would congregate at times at different peoples houses and pool our resources for days. Nobody was shot, no gun murders occurred, life was fine on the hard maple tree lined streets of the little town of 1400 people. Thank God we were only 1.5 hours from Chicago. In better weather it was my only saviour.