Jump to content

Knife Control?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:


Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

Back again, it' was a while back, but several people questioned my comparing US and UK crime statistics, as the US population is larger. I did actually bear that in mind before I posted. The population of the US is what? 150 million, 200 million? The UK is around 60 million. There has been ONE school shooting in the UK in the last 10 years or so. I can think of 5 or 6 such incidents in the US in the last 2 years alone. Now work out the figures.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but school shootings aren't a large portion of US crime. They are simply more sensationalized than your street gang murders.

quote:


There are just plain too many people out there that can't keep their cool enough, to NOT draw their weapon and shoot someone.

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of those people are criminals. They aren't supposed to own a gun anyway.

quote:


I have known far too many people that should never own a gun, to think that there aren't a heck of a lot more people just like them, who DO own guns. And that's what scares me. They do say that an armed society is a polite society. But it's also a violent, deadly society, because there are some people who are just too stupid to own something so easy to kill someone with.

True, but you shouldn't ask ME to sacrifice MY rights just because the MINORITY of people can't handle their rights.

quote:


as people like me happy.

The government makes a law that requires ALL people wanting to aquire a gun, take a 2 year course (once a week for an hour or two, no missing a class) on how to safely use and keep your gun (triple this for concealed). This course would have to be extremely cheap, otherwise it is economically prohibitive. Maybe I'm a little overboard on the 2 (6) years, but you get the idea.


I may shock you, but I'm totally for this. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not against gun CONTROL. Except two years is a little overboard (as you've said).

The problem is that anyone with a clean criminal record could walk into a gun shop today and own a weapon tomorrow or the next day.

quote:


Now, next, they issue a gun license (some places have these for heavier weapons, if I'm not mistaken). This license would have to be required for anyone to buy any gun. It would have to be renewed every, say...5 years, just like a driver's license (every year for concealed).

Sounds fine by me. But to hell with concealed weapons. If people have weapons, they shouldn't hide it.

quote:


Now, in addition, manditory background checks for ALL purchasers. Manditory waiting periods of up to 2-3 weeks for ALL weapons (tripled if has concealed license). Felons are prohibited 100%. Any who use a firearm in a crime are felons (this is already in place). Any felon who uses a gun in a new crime, is (as Jaguar put it) put in jail and throw away the key (until technology gets to the point where we can edit their brain in such a way, that they'll never commit another crime with a firearm, pie in the sky). Manditory life sentence, no parole ever, maximum security prison.

I'm fine with that too. In fact, anyone who uses a gun in an improper manner should be punished this way.

quote:


If the government would enact this, I, as a rather extremely anti-gun person, would be QUITE content, and none of you would hear another peep out of me about gun-control.

I AM against registering what firearms an individual has. I am well aware of that problem.

I suppose, I should explain what changed my opinion about all this.

The right to keep and bear arms, as expressed by the second amendment to the Constitution, intends for a population to be able to defeat oppression (both internal and external) by keeping themselves armed.


The reason firearms should be registered is that law enforcement can more easily track criminals. This helps in the right of safety for citizens by assisting law enforcement.

Just because the government knows what guns you possess does not mean that you cannot use them.

quote:


Thus, IF the government requires things such as I stated above, I would be content. Because I would know that MANY less idiots would have firearms. Simply because it is far too complicated to get a firearm. Only those who really want it for the purpose intended, would stick it out for all that time. Of course, during the classes, they would have to stress the real purpose of firearms in our society, as well as how to use it safely.

That's where I disagree. If a criminal wants a gun, he will get it. You know what the result of terribly heavy or overly strict regs would be? A black market. I mean, what if guns were as uncontrolled as drugs. I shudder to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to disagree on the stringent requirements, 2 years, come on!! The 2nd amendment had a purpose and you would be watering it down to point where it really doen't mean anything.

A 10 hour class maybe, maybe a requirement for range time, 20-30 hours, but 2 years is just extreme. Also, concealed weapons permits should not be necessary anyway, a person who can legally own a gun, should be allowed to carry it whereever and however they so choose.

Also, registration, aramike, you and I are going to argue this no matter what, you seem to feel that the 2nd amendment is inviolate, but it is not, when the 2nd amendment is given special treatment by liberal constitutional scholars, saying that the states have a right to regulate it, but do not have a right to regulate the 1st amendment, well, something is really wrong.

Once the government has the registration numbers of all guns, they will 1: know where every gun is, it's none of thier business, only those who own guns, but not the guns themselves, why? goes to point2: Hitler installed gun registration, after that he went after them, if the states are allowed to regulate the 2nd amendment, then they can pretty much do what they want, see california and their assault weapons ban, nah, we're just going to register them, then after the suckers registered, then they outlawed them and came and took them, yes, they came and took them. A friend of mine down there had an SKS and like a good littl sheeple, he registered it, then within a few months of being outlawed they were at his front door asking for it. Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation, do not fool yourself, it happens EVERY time!!

If California can get away with it, what makes you think other states can't? or the fed's for that matter. all we need is another Gore getting elected and the 2nd amendment is gone, not literally, but it will be diced up with impossible regs and impossible times, and impossible anything else they can think of. it will be neutered, and then the government can do whatever it wants inviolate!! We will still have the 2nd amendment, but it won't mean a damn thing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Also, registration, aramike, you and I are going to argue this no matter what, you seem to feel that the 2nd amendment is inviolate, but it is not, when the 2nd amendment is given special treatment by liberal constitutional scholars, saying that the states have a right to regulate it, but do not have a right to regulate the 1st amendment, well, something is really wrong.

Wrong. You don't understand the Constitution.

I'll explain:

The First Ammendment:

quote:


Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read the part in bold.

The Second Ammendment:

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.

The First Ammendment EXPLICITLY says that Congress can NOT impede the right to freedom of speech and religion. It CAN regulate freedom of speech and freedom of press, however - that's why the government can keep things CLASSIFIED. The second ammendment, however, does NOT say that. It simply says that the people's right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Forcing people to register guns is NOT an infringement of that right.

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

shall not be infringed.

What part of that do you NOT understand?

From Websters!!

quote:

Main Entry: in┬Àfringe

Pronunciation: in-'frinj

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): in┬Àfringed; in┬Àfring┬Àing

Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush,

from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK

Date: 1533

transitive senses

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE

intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon

on our rights>

synonym see TRESPASS

- in┬Àfring┬Àer noun

Again, what part of that do you NOT understand?

Sorry Aramike, you got me PISSED!! Call me a LIAR, I DON'T THINK SO!!! You better keep looking because someone is lying to you, and it sure as hell ain't me!!

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


What part of that do you NOT understand?

I understand that more clearly than you, obviously. Regulation of rights is NOT infringement.

By YOUR definition, we can't prohibit FELONS from owning weapons, either.

I'm starting to wonder as to your qualifications in this argument. It seems EXTREMELY right wing and the facts seem skewed, if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I SAY, what part do you not understand?

Shall NOT be INFRINGED, trespassed, trampled on, crushed etc.... Come on Aramike, you had better try again, you are not very convincing, on this and other things!!!

What part DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!! and that goes for the rest of you too!! lol

And a felon is someone who has broken the law in such a way that they have given up their rights under the constitution, if you are not a citizen, or have given up your rights by infringing on anothers, then you are not covered by the constitution. THAT is a given!!

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment also has the phrase In order to form a well-regulated militia...

Since the word militia was a term-of-art back then, meaning the population-at-large, having some form of regulation on arms for the general population would not be against the spirit of the Second Amendment, as long as it is well-regulated. Also in keeping with the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, these regulations must come from the States, not the Federal government.

We went over this in April (Here's the link, startingat the bottom of page 1). I'm inlcuding my relevant points again here.

-------------------------------------------

Why not go straight to the source and include a Founding Father in the debate.

In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.

quote:

The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government:

quote:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.

quote:

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army.

quote:

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army.

quote:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes.

quote:

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

Here is a link to the entire set of Federalist Papers. Even though these were written in 1788, the principles still hold true today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I never thought I'd see Aramike and Jaguar on opposite sides of... any debate.

(Okay, you're not on opposite sides, but you get my drift.)

Gun control laws make sense for the general population, but personally I'm beginning to think that the real issues with guns in a society have to do with things beyond gun legislation:

How we deal with the mentally disturbed.

How we deal with poverty.

Rehabilitation of criminals.

There are reasons why Switzerland and Austrian and Japan and many many other countries have low low crime rates. Partially it has to do with how much they restrict guns from the population, but it also has to do with the culture of the nation, social programs, general wealth, and satisfaction of the people.

There are countries, many countries with NO gun control at all. In these countries, children cannot walk to school without fearing for their lives. Bands of criminals routinely murder the innocent without fear of punishment. You can have a country with no restrictions on gun ownership and use, or you can have a country with some rational restrictions on gun ownership and use. Which do you want your country to be? What do you want it to look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said, you want to make sure that gunowners Are A: trained in the use, storage, and handling of firearms, B: are capable of knowing when and when not to use a firearm, and C: are not felons or those that should not be handling a firearm ,I say that is FINE!! No problem!!

BUT, and here's the BUT, you DO NOT register those owners weapons, period. It is the governments business who can have a firearm, but it NOT the governments business what type and how many firearms that a legal gunowner has!!

That is the gunowners responsibility, the gunowner should know what guns he has and the serial numbers of those weapons, so that if those weapons are somehow stolen or get out of his control, he can report those weapons to the police. Those are the types of weapons that police have to worry about, those that are stolen from legal, responsible gunowners. But it is NONE of the governments business who owns what weapons!!! NONE!!!

Registration of firearms ALWAYS leads to confiscation of those firearms, ALWAYS!!! Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it!!

The 2nd amendment was put there for a reason, and allowing the government to take the bite out of it with regulations, laws, etc, that make it harder for a legal gunowner to get and own a weapon, we might as well not have it at all.

Aramike seems to think that the 2nd amendment and the constitution are inviolate, well, look at the abuse of the state commerce clause in the constitution, look at Social Security, look at welfare, look at the Department of Education. Where in the constitution does it give the Federal government these powers? well, if they can ignore it on those, what makes you think that the 2nd amendment is somehow different to them?

quote:

The children! Why can't we think of the children!?!?

I know that this was sarcastic in nature, but it makes a hell of a good point, Liberals love this argument, and hopefully we can make more people react to it just the way you did, sarcastically and as a joke!!

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, you go right ahead and register your firearms, MOST of mine are registered as well, but those that are not will remain that way, it is none of the governments business, and yes, it is a personal opinion.

The government has no need to know what weapons I have unless they are stolen and might be used in a crime. I believe that if the founding fathers heard about registration of firearms, they would revolt all over again.

And to answer your last question, weapons of MASS destruction should not be allowed to be owned by civilians, this IS a military responsibility, no if's and's or but's, but anything less then that should be allowed. any mobile weapon should be allowed, the civilian population should be as well armed in conventional weaponry as the military, but again that is my personal opinion based on what I believe the founding fathers actually intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


And to answer your last question, weapons of MASS destruction should not be allowed to be owned by civilians, this IS a military responsibility, no if's and's or but's, but anything less then that should be allowed. any mobile weapon should be allowed, the civilian population should be as well armed in conventional weaponry as the military, but again that is my personal opinion based on what I believe the founding fathers actually intended.

So, in other words, regulation IS permitted under the Constitution. So, now we simply have a difference of opinion as to the extent of regulation - the Constitution doesn't apply there.

Any regulation (so long as no banning) is Constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So, in other words, regulation IS permitted under the Constitution. So, now we

simply have a difference of opinion as to the extent of regulation - the Constitution

doesn't apply there.

Any regulation (so long as no banning) is Constitutional.

Yes, we have a difference of opinion, I see more regulation as the slippery slope toward confiscation, the more they are allowed to do, the more they WILL do. The federal Government just can't help itself. I would rather trust the people then trust the government!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure that confiscation is a foregone conclusion.

The Democrats are backing away from the gun control issue and conceding defeat since the last election. The lesson that they learned is that one of their prime constituents is the labor unions, and many, many people in the unions are NRA members who do not favor gun control.

This is why the Democrats are backing away from forcing the issue.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Commander ZIX:

The congress has little to say about the 2nd ammendment. It is the job of the COURT system tointerpret the meaning of the constitution in today's world NOT the job of congress!


The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Congress can try to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

look at the abuse of the state commerce clause in the constitution, look at Social Security, look at welfare, look at the Department of Education. Where in the constitution does it give the Federal government these powers?

From an activist Judiciary.

The Left has learned that what they can't pass through legislation in the Congress, they can get enacted through legis-prudence. This is why the liberals are fighting so hard to overturn Bush's judicial nominees as too conservative -- because they want liberal activists willing to interpret rights (or non-rights) that aren't (or are) in the Constitution in order to accomplish what they couldn't through elected representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar said:

quote:

And like I said, you want to make sure that gunowners Are A: trained in the use, storage, and handling of firearms, B: are capable of knowing when and when not to use a firearm, and C: are not felons or those that should not be handling a firearm ,I say that is FINE!! No problem!!

BUT, and here's the BUT, you DO NOT register those owners weapons, period. It is the governments business who can have a firearm, but it NOT the governments business what type and how many firearms that a legal gunowner has!!

Hamilton says:

quote:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
well-regulated militia
, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

It is interesting to note the use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" here. Hamilton is referring to the training that a regiment would need in order to qualify as a fighting unit. This leads one to suspect that "well-regulated" refers to the unit's ability to move as one, to make effective use of arms, to be an effective fighting force, etc., not necessarily a regulation on the owenership of arms.

Hamilton then says:

quote:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

So, even Hamilton was calling for some sort of periodic assessment of one's knowledge and ability to maintain and use arms. Today, this might take the form of a license with annual or bi-annual competency certifications (Hamilton called for twice a year).

I always believed that the best way to do this was to re-establish the concept of the State Militia and make all gun-owners register with the state as members of the militia. The militia would then have the responsibility of overseeing the competency of its members. This would be registering the gun owner, not the gun. One can move closer to the line by making the gun owner certify for certain types of arms (which the owner must provide during certification). This would have the effect of not knowing what arms a person has, but of knowing what arms the person was certified to use. Again, this information would be maintained by the individual state militias.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Steve,

I think it is a WONDERFUL idea!! BUT, the States already have their "militia" it's called the national guard. We of course know that this is not at all what the founding fathers meant by a militia, but the liberals are all for attaching that label to them, much easier to ban guns when you already "HAVE" a militia to attach the 2nd amendment to.

But I think that we indeed should begin that again, I am ALL for it, but of course selling the liberals on it would be a major chore. They would kill it before it even came close to a committee.

Man, imagine the cost in weapons alone, would save the state millions every year!! If each member of the militia was required to supply their own weapons and ammunition, Genius, Steve, PURE Genius!!

Then as a member of the militia being a requirement for gun ownership, there could be an annual fee of say $100.00 to keep up the beauracratic nonsense that goes with it and the local ranges where the members could go to practice and take their biannual certification. Then, we would not only have a place to go and shoot our weapons in a safe and friendly environment, but we could bring in the major lobbying organizations, Gun owners of America and the NRA along with the state and local organizations to help keep up with the certifications for instructors as well as the members themselves. This would also make it possible to certify all owners of firearms for a concealed weapons permit as well. All certified gun owners and therefore members of the militia,would be required to carry a concealed weapon at all times to render assistance to law enforcement or a fellow citizen if needed, can you imagine the drop in the crime rate if that occurred?

This would kill 2 birds with one stone, register gun owners, and make it impossible for the gunbanners to get on their high horses and ask why gunowners would need those types of weapons!!

The gunowners are responsible for thier actions to the particular states militias that they are members of.. I LIKE it!! I LIKE IT A LOT!!!

If they did this, I WOULD be THE FIRST in line signing up, as a matter of fact, once I get my NRA certification done, I could be an instructor!! YES!!!

What do you think there Aramike?

Oh and one more thing, local law enforcement officials would be required to come onto those ranges as well, to help train the militia in how to render assistance to law enforcement if it became necessary!!

and each one of us would be required to take an oath similar to the military oath, except we would make that oath to the particular state we live in and it's constitution and of course the constitution of the United States of America!! OH YEAH, I LIKE IT!! I LIKE IT A LOT!!!

This would make sure that gunowners undertand the HUGE responsibility that comes with gun ownership, and make the safety of thier community a Major part of that responsibility!!

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

BUT, the States already have their "militia" it's called the national guard.

From The Information Please Almanac - Encyclopedia Section:

quote:

National Guard

National Guard, U.S. militia. The militia is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which also defines the militia's functions and the federal and state role. Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Congress was entrusted with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but the appointment of officers and the training of the militia were reserved to the states. Further provisions were made in the Second Amendment. In peacetime the National Guard is placed under state jurisdiction and can be used by governors to quell local disturbances and to help in times of local disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States and the president is commander in chief. The National Guard was partially mobilized for the Korean War (1950–53), the Berlin crisis of 1961, and the Persian Gulf War (1990–91). The National Guard's equipment and personnel are standardized to conform with U.S. army regulations. Enlistment is voluntary; compensation, paid by the federal government, is given for periods of drill and field training. The Air National Guard was formed in 1947.

From The Information Please Almanac - Dictionary Section:

quote:

Na'tional Guard'

state military forces, in part equipped, trained, and quartered by the U.S. government, and paid by the U.S. government, that become an active component of the army when called into federal service by the president in civil emergencies. Cf. militia (def. 2).

From The Information Please Almanac - Almanac Section:

quote:

The National Guard

The National Guard consists of citizen-soldiers and airmen who serve on both a federal and a state level. The Army National Guard has units in 2,700 communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Air National Guard has 88 flying units at more than 170 installations nationwide. National Guard units are organized, trained, and equipped to the same standards as the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force.

The National Guard has two roles—one as part of the nation's military force and the other for state emergencies and community support missions. This dual state/federal role for the National Guard is based on a Constitutional mandate. The relationship is unique and sets the National Guard apart from other military reserve forces.

Currently, the Army National Guard, 350,000 strong, makes up more than one-half of the total army's ground combat forces and one-third of its support forces. Air National Guard units, with a total strength of 105,000, are closely integrated with the U.S. Air Force and perform worldwide operations on a daily basis.

So, it appears that the National Guard is accepted as the Founding Father's definition of a militia. Now there just has to be a way for people who are not combat-fit to also register with the national guard and participate with their own weaponry instead of standardized military issue.

If the National Guard is voluntary, can they reject people? If it is made so that they cannot reject people, but instead register them in a "civil defense" unit instead that is not subject to being drafted, would that work? If the National Guard says that anyone who registers is subject to being called into service for civil or international defense, would this be acceptible to gun owners? Would it deter gun owners from joining? Would it bring out eager yahoos who are looking for some gun action?

Just some thoughts, but overall, I like the idea of a state-run overseeing body that manages the certification of gun-owner worthiness. I like the idea of calling that body a State Militia/National Guard, but I dislike the part about the Federal Government being able to call it up into service, but I guess you have to take the bad with the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the whole idea is that those citizen soldiers are answerable to thier states only, they could NEVER be called up for federal service, unless they volunteer for such duty by joining the national guard or the US military.

The citizen soldiers would be answerable to the local law enforcement, thier mayors or city managers, counties and of course the state government, but not to the federal government, that was the whole point of the 2nd amendment. The national guard is not a true militia if they can be used by the federal government in a time of war or are answerable to the federal government in any way!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this with interest and I have a few observations, some of which may not sit well with our transatlantic cousins.

These are merely from an outsiders viewpoint and possible reflect many peoples opinions regarding US gun laws.

*Climbs up on high horse*

I've made no secret of my dislike of guns, that is just a personal opinion. I have no objection to responsible people owning guns under a correctly regulated system. What bugs me is that in my opinion, gun owners are merely hiding behind your constitution as vindication of gun ownership. My American history is, well, non-existant, but this could apply to any country's constitution or legislation. The constitution was written over 200 years ago, how can this still be relevant in the 21st century? It seems to me that people use this as an excuse to own a gun.: 'I'm going to buy a gun because the constitution lets me' Has anyone ever wondered why there is so much gun crime? Is it maybe something to do with the number of guns available, because of the above point? Many people in this thread have made the distinction between legally and illegally posessed firearms, yet has anyone ever considered that many illegal firearms were once legally owned firearms, which have somehow made their way into the hands of the criminal community? Jaguar's statement above that he has unregistered firearms to me is plain irresponsible. If said guns are stolen, that's a few more for criminals which are totally untraceable. I think it is safe to say, just by the law of averages, that if the number of legally available guns had been lower in the past, so would the number of illegal firearms. Because of the constitution, burglars are going to 'pack' because there is a fair chance that your average man in the street is similarly equipped. Yes, we get violent crime in the UK too, and any shooting invariably makes the national press, a lethal shooting certainly will. Yet I can sit and watch the news for weeks without hearing about such an incident. It's just a completely different attitude we have. Our police aren't even armed, and I hope they never will be, where would it end? As a scientist, there will be opportunities for me to work in the US, but as a father, I would think twice. Do I want my girls to go to a school with armed security guards and weapon-detectors? Not particularly, no. OK, so it's a deterrent, but what brought about the need for such a deterrent? Go back to my original point.

*Falls off high horse (don't like them much either)*

My arguments may not be water-tight, but they are based on my opinions and feelings as an outside observer. If anything I've said is blatantly inaccurate, then I stand corrected. Like I said, just an impression, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...