I'd vote for this "sensible gun law"


PDA






Jumping Frog
June 5, 2009, 04:53 PM
Be it enacted, immediately upon the President's signature, all previously enacted federal gun laws are null and void. Be it further enacted that all agents in the employ of the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (henceforth referred to simply as ATF) in a firearms enforcement role shall be offered positions within the expanded Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) under the supervision of the Director for Civilian Marksmanship (DCM).

Inasmuch as violent crime and the threat of terrorism are and will remain a clear and present danger in our world, the following sensible gun laws will be henceforth be enacted and enforced:

1. Every able-bodied person, having reached the age of majority, shall have readily available both a long arm (i.e., rifle or shotgun) and a sidearm (i.e., pistol or revolver) and a minimum of fifty (50) rounds of ammunition for each. (With parental/guardian permission, the age of majority requirement may be waived. Further, those who wish may claim Conscientious Objector (CO) status to be waived from the requirement altogether.) A familiarization-fire course shall be completed by each person at least annually under the auspices of the DCM.

2. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) shall make available to the DCM a complete inventory of all small arms available in the Department of Defense (DoD) that are not currently required for use within the DoD. Any small arms the DCM deems appropriate shall be transferred to the CMP for sale to United States citizens desiring to comply with paragraph 1 above.

3. All state and local firearms laws are considered to be null and void as they are superseded by both the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the right to self-defense which even predates our Constitution. By extension, all Concealed Weapon/Handgun Licenses are rendered moot citizens are expected and encouraged to carry weapons/firearms.

4. The DCM, with the aid of the newly transferred former ATF agents shall develop and administer a suitable firearms safety and marksmanship training program for implementation in all schools, grades K-12.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'd vote for this "sensible gun law"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
damien
June 5, 2009, 04:55 PM
Needs more legalese. :neener:

PPGMD
June 5, 2009, 05:06 PM
A familiarization-fire course shall be completed by each person at least annually under the auspices of the DCM.

So I have to waste my time and qualify every year, great.

Sure the course of fire takes 30 minutes to complete, but with so many others being there, and the usual slow downs I would have to waste an entire day.

MrPeter
June 5, 2009, 05:51 PM
Make it every other year or so. Otherwise we'll get the same slow lines as the DMV has.

waterhouse
June 5, 2009, 05:51 PM
So I have to waste my time and qualify every year, great.

Sure the course of fire takes 30 minutes to complete, but with so many others being there, and the usual slow downs I would have to waste an entire day.

For no firearms laws, I'd be willing to head to the range and shoot once a year. "No honey, I HAVE to go to the range today. Really."

Full auto, suppressors with no tax, no concealed carry permits necessary, carry anywhere and everywhere, firearms shipped right to your door, import anything from any country, no paperwork, cut barrel to any length you want . . . yeah, I'd go to the range for an entire day every year for that.

mini14gb
June 5, 2009, 07:46 PM
What reasonable, patriotic, gun enthusiast wouldn't vote for that is my question?

Lovesbeer99
June 5, 2009, 08:01 PM
So the RTKBA is now not a right but a federally mandated obligation? Why not just require 2 years of military service at that point.

I love the 2nd and I'm a great supporter, but let's not go the other way too far. Try to re-word this so that the govt is obligated to support the program. Supply guns, ammo, ranges, and laws that allow people to take off from work (like jury duty), but don't make it a federal offense to object and let's not keep the control with the federal govt.

We wan't less fed not more fed.

CTSigLover
June 5, 2009, 08:01 PM
Great, more Federal government interference in my life, telling me now that I have to own guns.

I would buy into the part repealing Federal gun laws, but when you start placing positive obligations on people, that's where you and I part ways.

We need fewer laws, not more...

mini14gb
June 5, 2009, 08:12 PM
Obviously this "law" is just a first draft that would get paired down and changed in committee but I'm still for it. I understand less gov't but as part of a sweeping national defense policy with China owning more and more of our debt I would go for it in lew of mandatory service in the Armed Force. What pisses me off is that China is hostile to us and we continue to export American jobs to them all for the sake of Wall Street profits.

CTSigLover
June 5, 2009, 08:29 PM
I understand less gov't but as part of a sweeping national defense policy with China owning more and more of our debt I would go for it in lew [sic] of mandatory service in the Armed Force.

You would be in favor of mandatory gun ownership because you fear Chinese military action? You think the Chinese army is coming here? To the US mainland?

CoRoMo
June 5, 2009, 08:31 PM
"sensible gun law"

There really is no such thing.

mini14gb
June 5, 2009, 09:51 PM
You would be in favor of mandatory gun ownership because you fear Chinese military action? You think the Chinese army is coming here? To the US mainland?

Well in light of Chinese military aggression as it pertains to Taiwan (whom we swore to defend) I would say if a Chinese attack on Taiwan happened that will almost certainly require an attack on U.S. Aegis Cruise ships are defending Taiwan. In that event we could possibily be facing total war. Don't think China isn't the New Red Menace. They are a communist country and the U.S. (like a bunch of fools) is giving them all their wealth to be aggressive with in the name of cheap labor for Rich American CEO's. Below is an excerpt from a recent Fox News Story along with a link to the full story.

U.S. Wary of Growing Chinese Military Power
Pentagon says China needs to be more open about its military modernization or risk creating uncertainty and miscalculations by other nations.

WASHINGTON -- This month's seagoing squabble between Chinese patrol boats and an American Navy ship illustrates the conflicted relationship between the two countries.

A U.S. Defense Department annual report released Wednesday on the Chinese military didn't mention that showdown but did raise troubling possibilities.

"We could become adversaries if we allow ourselves to go down that path," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said."The key is to prevent that from happening."

China's rapidly growing military strength is shifting the military balance in the region and could be used to force its claims in disputed territories, the report said.

Beijing continues to develop weapons that threaten longtime rival Taiwan, even though tensions between the two have been reduced significantly, the report said. It added that China is also developing longer range capabilities that could have an affect beyond the Asia-Pacific region.

The latest in a series of annual assessments for Congress of China's military power, the report says the U.S. "welcomes the rise of a stable, peaceful and prosperous China and encourages China to participate responsibly" in world affairs.

"However, much uncertainty surrounds China's future course, particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used," the report said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/pentagon-china-weapons-development-threatens-taiwan/

CTSigLover
June 5, 2009, 10:09 PM
I could see a naval squabble in the straight of Taiwan, but I find the idea of Chinese boots on the ground in the US to be far fetched.

The Taiwanese straight is between 80 and 110 miles wide, and China has not crossed it. It is considerably further to Hawaii and further still to California... perhaps you are correct, but I just don't think China has the force projection ability.

If we fight a war with China in the future, it will be an economic one. Now Russia v. China, that's another story altogether...:(

But this is going off topic... sorry.

cyclopsshooter
June 5, 2009, 10:14 PM
yea vote

Bookworm
June 5, 2009, 11:43 PM
No, no way.

I'm a supporter of the RKBA, as well as the historical and biblical heritage to defend ourselves and our families.

But silencers, explosive rounds, and full auto weapons are going too far for civilian use.

2RCO
June 5, 2009, 11:55 PM
But silencers, explosive rounds, and full auto weapons are going too far for civilian use.:cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead:

Okay maybe not explosive rounds--- but seriously what is the big deal with silencers they are just like a muffler on a car. Making target shooting less obnoxious. Full auto as well -- A full auto M4 is no more dangerous than a pump shotgun.

Lets remember what RTKBA and the 2A actually means!

Mags
June 6, 2009, 12:06 AM
Sure the course of fire takes 30 minutes to complete, but with so many others being there, and the usual slow downs I would have to waste an entire day.

BooHoo for the price of freedom.

Seminole
June 6, 2009, 12:40 AM
No thanks--rights are not obligations.

kilo729
June 6, 2009, 02:36 AM
No. Don't force anything on me or others.

22LRFan
June 6, 2009, 03:21 AM
A familiarization-fire course shall be completed by each person at least annually under the auspices of the DCM.

That would get struck down. That's along the lines of having to take a test in order to vote. While I think marksmanship is important, one should not have to earn a right.

Six
June 6, 2009, 07:37 AM
Wow, so people are actually in favor of taking away personal freedom, as long as it means more guns? :scrutiny:

Mr.Davis
June 6, 2009, 08:46 AM
To those who claim "there is no sensible gun law" - do you believe convicted violent felons should be allowed to own firearms? Remember, this includes murderers, rapists, and those who have committed violent assault.

Prion
June 6, 2009, 09:13 AM
If you have a problem with China boycott Chinese made products and by all means avoid Wally World.

Please spare us more government regulation.

CajunBass
June 6, 2009, 09:22 AM
BooHoo for the price of freedom.

How is it "freedom" if I HAVE to go to the range and meet someone elses standards before I can do something?

Art Eatman
June 6, 2009, 11:27 AM
bookworm, silencers would merely be courteous insofar as your neighbors' hearing. They're over-the-counter in some European countries.

Explosive ammo is more a myth than reality, although I have drilled into lead 30-caliber bullets and added pop-stuff. Didn't accomplish anything.

Full-auto is a fun way to convert money into noise. It's one way for God to tell you that you have too much money. Regardless, good folks don't misuse them, and you can't stop bad guys. No different from BB guns, really; you can ruin windows with a Daisy Red Ryder.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee parity between the populace and the government, insofar as military power--with there being an advantage to the populace by virtue of their numbers. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It's quite obvious as to the intent of the package of enumerated rights.

Moderator hat on: Any more about China and politics and this thread is toast.

DeepSouth
June 6, 2009, 11:43 AM
Quote:
"sensible gun law"

There really is no such thing.


There is one.

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.

Bookworm
June 6, 2009, 02:13 PM
silencers would merely be courteous And of course used by those with criminal intent, which we already have a huge problem with, as everyone here must admit. Silencers don't place civilians on parity with our military forces. While some urban ranges could be well served using these, there is no need to try to muffle a gunshot for SD situations. We already have a hash of gun laws, and a single bright-line rule serves our people best.

Explosive ammo is more a myth than reality I was thinking more of the problems with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Somalis, amongst others, all of whom seem to have rocket-propelled grenades by their bedsides, for no lawful purpose. Surplus AT-4s, LAW rockets, TOW missiles, etc have no SD value. While the civilians should be on par with military forces, all of those weapons will kill innocent bystanders and cause property damage unless the shooter is properly trained how and where to use them (Back-blast area clear!!). Since the 2nd amendment doesn't come contingent with training, a bright-line rule is again needed.

Full-auto is a fun way to convert money into noise. It's one way for God to tell you that you have too much money. Regardless, good folks don't misuse them, and you can't stop bad guys. You're 100% right. The only way to stop bad guys is to extend the death penalty towards all crimes involving the historical types of banditry (armed robbery, entering a home to harm or rob someone, rape, the killing of someone who has not threatened you, your family or property, etc) and to arm the good guys. What I don't want to see is gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Latin Kings, Crips, or whatever they call themselves with readily available full-auto weapons. If they are unavailable, law-abiding citizens will be on par with the criminals. Think about the impact of full-auto weapons on our society and police forces.

Demitrios
June 6, 2009, 02:32 PM
Consider this, yes we're all now allowed to carry and own, but who's to say WHAT we're allowed to carry and own? The military issues sidearms and rifles to infantryman but the selection is obviously a limited one. What happens if they tell me, "Well we gave you a pistol and rifle, now you don't need any of your other ones."?

withdrawn34
June 6, 2009, 03:41 PM
obligation != freedom.

Dimis
June 6, 2009, 04:11 PM
not bad but i like mine better

no felons no crazies can own or live with someone who owns a firearm
oc/cc legal PERIOD unless superseeded by the first statment
throw out '34 '68 and '86
and of course what you own is your choise even if your choise is not to own at all

metallic
June 6, 2009, 04:39 PM
silencers would merely be courteous And of course used by those with criminal intent, which we already have a huge problem with, as everyone here must admit. Silencers don't place civilians on parity with our military forces. While some urban ranges could be well served using these, there is no need to try to muffle a gunshot for SD situations. We already have a hash of gun laws, and a single bright-line rule serves our people best.

Guess you've never fired off a .40 in a confined space without hearing protection. I have, my ears rang for days. I have no desire to actually own a suppressor, but to say that there is no legitimate use for one except by criminals is ludicrous.

Full-auto is a fun way to convert money into noise. It's one way for God to tell you that you have too much money. Regardless, good folks don't misuse them, and you can't stop bad guys. You're 100% right. The only way to stop bad guys is to extend the death penalty towards all crimes involving the historical types of banditry (armed robbery, entering a home to harm or rob someone, rape, the killing of someone who has not threatened you, your family or property, etc) and to arm the good guys. What I don't want to see is gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Latin Kings, Crips, or whatever they call themselves with readily available full-auto weapons. If they are unavailable, law-abiding citizens will be on par with the criminals. Think about the impact of full-auto weapons on our society and police forces.

Full auto was legal up until 1986, then ownership remained legal but just more selective. There was no rivers of blood in the streets like the antis claim every time it becomes legal to carry concealed somewhere new. Also, you are under the assumption that gangs like MS-13 don't already have full auto already. The funny thing about laws is that only the law-abiding obey them.

Also, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with being the last remaining check on government power. Just like the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, which is the other straw man argument that the antis like to build and then destroy to further encroach on our rights.

Gamera
June 6, 2009, 05:22 PM
there is no need to try to muffle a gunshot for SD situations.
I was going to say the same thing as metallic. .45 in a 12'x12' room is going to leave your ears hurting.

Back on topic though, I wouldn't vote for this hypothetical law. Requiring everyone to have guns and get federally-supervised training isn't really my idea of freedom.

Dex Sinister
June 6, 2009, 05:31 PM
4. The DCM, with the aid of the newly transferred former ATF agents shall develop and administer a suitable firearms safety and marksmanship training program for implementation in all schools, grades K-12.

You're going to let former ATF agents near CHILDREN????

waterhouse
June 6, 2009, 09:22 PM
And of course used by those with criminal intent, which we already have a huge problem with, as everyone here must admit. Silencers don't place civilians on parity with our military forces. While some urban ranges could be well served using these, there is no need to try to muffle a gunshot for SD situations. We already have a hash of gun laws, and a single bright-line rule serves our people best.

So, just to be clear, your logic is that we shouldn't have suppressors because people with criminal intent (that is, those people who are willing to break the law, for example, your proposed law outlawing suppressors) might use them for criminal purposes? That sounds just like the logic the Brady campaign uses.

Are you aware that suppressors are already legal for regular civilian to own, as are machine guns? Which single bright line rule are you referring to? Are you saying you want the government to make more restrictive gun laws that outlaw suppressors?

As for the "no need to muffle a gunshot for SD purposes" I welcome you to go to an indoor range and shoot without hearing protection. If I ever have to fire shots in my home, I'm hoping I'm using one of my suppressed guns. I'll sacrifice some hearing loss to save my life if I have to, but I'd prefer not to have to.

Flyboy
June 6, 2009, 10:45 PM
I would say if a Chinese attack on Taiwan happened that will almost certainly require an attack on U.S.
With which blue-water navy now?

(Not Chinese politics, but a realistic tactical assessment of the posited threat.)

Sorry, I can't get behind the mandated proficiency checks, no matter how much we'd gain for it. The Swiss model is good, but still has its flaws.

The Lone Haranguer
June 7, 2009, 11:23 AM
You're just replacing one set of firearms laws with another that is just as onerous. Here are just two examples.

A familiarization-fire course shall be completed by each person at least annually under the auspices of the DCM.
There are a lot of people in this country. How will the program be administered? What is the standard for qualification? If you fail to qualify, do you get to keep your guns?

Any small arms the DCM deems appropriate shall be transferred to the CMP for sale to United States citizens desiring to comply with paragraph 1 above.


You would put unelected bureaucrats in charge of this? What would happen under an anti-gun president? Such as the one we have now?

Dokkalfar
June 7, 2009, 10:27 PM
2. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) shall make available to the DCM a complete inventory of all small arms available in the Department of Defense (DoD) that are not currently required for use within the DoD. Any small arms the DCM deems appropriate shall be transferred to the CMP for sale to United States citizens desiring to comply with paragraph 1 above.


the way I read this is:

Military arms not currently in use by the military (older, outdated models) can be 'donated' to this new program so civilians can buy them, as long as the DCM guy thinks its ok. So all this does is allow military surplus to be somewhat more available to civilians, assuming the DCM is 2A friendly. if he isnt, then there is no military surplus weapons for the public. Not exactly what I would say. Perhaps reword it to where there is no veto, ALL small arms are available for resale. (I am assuming small arms is defined as rifles, shotguns, and handguns?)

As to the silencer question, why shouldnt they be more available to the public? Go to a shooting range, and everyone wears ear protection. A suppressor just takes all that ear protection and moves it from the head of everyone present to the end of the barrels of the firearms. More convenient, and also easier on those who dont have hearing protection. And in a SD shoot, I dont think anyone would have time to put on ear protection, much less want to add the tactical disadvantage of not being able to hear anything

PT1911
June 7, 2009, 10:36 PM
I swear some of you guys are impossible... you whine about all the gun regulation but just proved here that if all of the current regulations were traded for the requirement to prove yourself competent each year (ahem, a day at the range) it is still too much. Seriously... Oh, and full autos and silencers are too scary for the general population?


I am sorry but this is rediculous. The purist idea of let me do what the hell I want to do without anyone saying anything about it is a naive dream.. if I could trade the requirement for backround checks, class III licensing, CCP, the inability to open carry for a required day at the range once a year or every other year, I would do so in a heart beat...

Flyboy
June 7, 2009, 11:41 PM
Either that, or it's a principled stand against government-enforced servitude, even if the demanded action is something we would do anyway. It's not just about us--it's about the imposition on others who might not want to shoot. The government has no right to compel action of any free man--it's right there in that word "free."

We're not saying it wouldn't be convenient, just that it would be selling out our devotion to freedom for our own convenience.

Principles are what you do when the choice is hard.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'd vote for this "sensible gun law"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!