Tamara
Senior Member
Only if running with scissors is illegal, too.
Stupidity and illegality do not necessarily coincide. No law that would require inane levels of intrusiveness to support should be allowed to stand.
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?
- Thread starter goon
- Start date
- Status
Only if running with scissors is illegal, too.
Stupidity and illegality do not necessarily coincide. No law that would require inane levels of intrusiveness to support should be allowed to stand.
artherd
member
I'd write a short and susicnt law, stating unequiviocaly once and for all that guns are an essential tool in secureing liberty and life for every citizen, and that the citizenry's right to own and carry those guns and other weapons will not be changed, altered, or eliminated in any way.
Oh, wait, some jack-hole beat me to the punch three centuries ago.
(I like that police officer = everyone else equality idea, but indeed the one wildcard IS the military. They could easily disarm all police and declare martial law, and we'd be back in Germany 1941.)
I say legalize nukes. They're simply too expensive and unwieldly to be purchased legally by anyone with ill will.
Oh, wait, some jack-hole beat me to the punch three centuries ago.
(I like that police officer = everyone else equality idea, but indeed the one wildcard IS the military. They could easily disarm all police and declare martial law, and we'd be back in Germany 1941.)
I say legalize nukes. They're simply too expensive and unwieldly to be purchased legally by anyone with ill will.
Tony Mig
Member
I may be the lone man on this one, but I do believe that we do need "some" common sense laws to protect us from those few who shouldn't be allowed access to firearms.
Such as the mentally disturbed, drug addicted, and alcoholics.
Secondly, any law written should be so written that it can not be interpreted in any other way than for the purpose for which it was intended. (yes, I too hate lawyers)
With that said, I'd leave the second admendment in place, with the added clause stating that no local or state law shall circumvent this admendment. In other words, it would become federal law above state's rights.
For the good of the general population, no agency, be it police, FBI, CIA et..al...would have legal access to nuclear, bio, chemical, or any war like mechanical device such as an attack helecopter, tank, submarine, artillery...etc. Yet, any device allowed for police, would also be allowed for the common citizen.
In my world, you would only get one chance to commit a violent crime, if convicted, you get one appeal, if the conviction holds, you die a slow, painful death.....in public.
If you are forced to kill in defense of your life, the life of a loved one, or to protect your private property...(and that includeds your motor vehicle, home, place of business, and your place of employment)....and will not be considered guilty of a crime until your proven to be guilty. If proven inocent, no other legal action from the victums family may at anytime be brought against you.
This is a complicated question needing deep and careful thought, but off the cuff, this is the best I can do for now.....
Perhaps after giving it more thought, I can detail my ideas a little better....
Such as the mentally disturbed, drug addicted, and alcoholics.
Secondly, any law written should be so written that it can not be interpreted in any other way than for the purpose for which it was intended. (yes, I too hate lawyers)
With that said, I'd leave the second admendment in place, with the added clause stating that no local or state law shall circumvent this admendment. In other words, it would become federal law above state's rights.
For the good of the general population, no agency, be it police, FBI, CIA et..al...would have legal access to nuclear, bio, chemical, or any war like mechanical device such as an attack helecopter, tank, submarine, artillery...etc. Yet, any device allowed for police, would also be allowed for the common citizen.
In my world, you would only get one chance to commit a violent crime, if convicted, you get one appeal, if the conviction holds, you die a slow, painful death.....in public.
If you are forced to kill in defense of your life, the life of a loved one, or to protect your private property...(and that includeds your motor vehicle, home, place of business, and your place of employment)....and will not be considered guilty of a crime until your proven to be guilty. If proven inocent, no other legal action from the victums family may at anytime be brought against you.
This is a complicated question needing deep and careful thought, but off the cuff, this is the best I can do for now.....
Perhaps after giving it more thought, I can detail my ideas a little better....
Eskimo Jim
Member
I'm with Tamara.
the 2nd Amendment and the 14th amendment pretty much say it all. Agencies have trouble enough enforcing those two alone.
Maybe the background check to prevent criminals and insane people from getting firearms would be about the only law that I'd keep.
-Jim
the 2nd Amendment and the 14th amendment pretty much say it all. Agencies have trouble enough enforcing those two alone.
Maybe the background check to prevent criminals and insane people from getting firearms would be about the only law that I'd keep.
-Jim
cratz2
Member
I have no idea what I would do with the system as it currently is. If I could reform prison and sentencing, a life sentence would put someone in a welded cell that would never be opened until the person was dead or possibly to get additional evidence for a potential new trial. I agree with violent offenders or at least repeat violent offenders would lose their right to own a gun, but I think that for someone that had stolen property on their property because someone else living there put it there to lose their right of ownership is beyond ludricous.
To gun laws, I'm against any form of registration. I think the way to go is that anyone that can legally own can open carry but maybe a license for concealed carry. If ANY crime is committed while carrying, another several years would be added to the sentencing. I'm don't know that I'm not against some sort of basic training course for carry. Nothing hardcore but you would need to be able to place all shots in a 6" target at 7 feet. Sad to say, not everyone can do this. Basic tactics would be taught... Shooting with 9mm FMJs or 357 LSWCs often result in complete penetration. Not everyone knows this. There would be a basic 50 round course with YOUR carry gun... for the trainees safety and knowledge than anything else. Again, some folks NEVER put 50 rounds through their carry gun.
To gun laws, I'm against any form of registration. I think the way to go is that anyone that can legally own can open carry but maybe a license for concealed carry. If ANY crime is committed while carrying, another several years would be added to the sentencing. I'm don't know that I'm not against some sort of basic training course for carry. Nothing hardcore but you would need to be able to place all shots in a 6" target at 7 feet. Sad to say, not everyone can do this. Basic tactics would be taught... Shooting with 9mm FMJs or 357 LSWCs often result in complete penetration. Not everyone knows this. There would be a basic 50 round course with YOUR carry gun... for the trainees safety and knowledge than anything else. Again, some folks NEVER put 50 rounds through their carry gun.
Mostly Harmless
Member
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Nothing else is necessary or desirable.
Obviously, a felon needs to be disarmed while incarcerated and serving his/her sentence, but on release regains full use of all his/her unalienable rights. If said felon isn't sufficiently rehabilitated by his/her sentence, then the sentence was not long enough.
In an armed society, there will be an awful lot fewer felons to worry about anyway.
J.
Obviously, a felon needs to be disarmed while incarcerated and serving his/her sentence, but on release regains full use of all his/her unalienable rights. If said felon isn't sufficiently rehabilitated by his/her sentence, then the sentence was not long enough.
In an armed society, there will be an awful lot fewer felons to worry about anyway.
J.
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Hmm.
No 100-round drum clips for M1 Garands. That's just way too much firepower for simple civilians.
Other than that, toss 'em.
No 100-round drum clips for M1 Garands. That's just way too much firepower for simple civilians.
Other than that, toss 'em.
stealthmode
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 459
only a criminal background check
Scrap 'em all & start over.
Our gov't is just WAY to concerned with inanimate objects, be they guns, explosives, drugs, scissors, whatever.
Yes, some inanimate objects can be a danger in and of themselves (radioactive substances, for example), but most objects only become dangerous in the hands of humans.
Firearms:
No limit on what an individual can own WRT weapons that cause damage using kinetic energy (rifles, machine guns, pistols, whatever). Weapons that cause damage via chemical energy (LAAW, MAAW, recoilless rifles, etc.) would be restricted to...duly constituted militia groups. Any two or more citizens can organize a militia group. Think a gun club with bigger hardware. A similar regimen WRT armed vehicles.
Explosives:
Back in the day, my grandpa had minimal explosives training and very easy access to explosives. He used them to clear stumps, blast gravel, blow beaver dams, & such. A very useful tool that is overly restricted, these days. I would require safe storage of explosives, as mentioned ain posts above. BTW, I keep a few gallons of gasoline in an unattached shed, NEVER in the house/garage.
NBC:
Leave them to the military. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to safely handle them, but the consequences of a screw-up can effect a large area.
Our gov't is just WAY to concerned with inanimate objects, be they guns, explosives, drugs, scissors, whatever.
Yes, some inanimate objects can be a danger in and of themselves (radioactive substances, for example), but most objects only become dangerous in the hands of humans.
Firearms:
No limit on what an individual can own WRT weapons that cause damage using kinetic energy (rifles, machine guns, pistols, whatever). Weapons that cause damage via chemical energy (LAAW, MAAW, recoilless rifles, etc.) would be restricted to...duly constituted militia groups. Any two or more citizens can organize a militia group. Think a gun club with bigger hardware. A similar regimen WRT armed vehicles.
Explosives:
Back in the day, my grandpa had minimal explosives training and very easy access to explosives. He used them to clear stumps, blast gravel, blow beaver dams, & such. A very useful tool that is overly restricted, these days. I would require safe storage of explosives, as mentioned ain posts above. BTW, I keep a few gallons of gasoline in an unattached shed, NEVER in the house/garage.
NBC:
Leave them to the military. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to safely handle them, but the consequences of a screw-up can effect a large area.
I agree that the gun didn't cause the murder to be any worse.
People argue however, that a gun allows a criminal to get a greater number of people in a shorter amount of time.
Personally i think its back to the prison sentense. I think they should be shorter.
yeap - shorter.
Lock em in the cell and leave em there. No food no water. A hole to wizz and crap in. Thier family/friends will have to take the responsiblity of making sure they survive thier short (up to 10 years max?) prison sentence. If the criminal doesn't have any friends/family that love em enough to keep them alive, then i guess they should have been nicer to thier friends/family. Simple crimes could be as short as a month - or a couple of weeks - w/ worse crimes getting longer sentences. One would be suprised what one 6x6 room w/ hardly any contact w/ people will do to someone, especially if they have to rely on friends/families charity in order to survive. Would dramaticly bring down the cost to hold a prisoner. (i hear thats 30grand a year per prisoner in a max security facility? or is it more? - thats more than a lot of people i know MAKE a year being lawful)
I think this would have the effect of less macho proudness of having "done a stint" at X facility. It should also make prison look a LOT less desireable or "livable".
Not sure about wacking them to early should a death sentence be put on a criminal. I have issue w/ this being used eventually on non-offenders. (like that guy that just got out of prison, after serving 20 years, for a rape he didn't commit) Yes i believe NOW there is a minority that are wrongfully accused, i just think if we go capping people willy nilly w/o video of them doing the crime or whatever, then it will become abused and innocent people will be put to death by getting framed or by mistake or whatever. Not something i would agree with.
J/Tharg!
People argue however, that a gun allows a criminal to get a greater number of people in a shorter amount of time.
Personally i think its back to the prison sentense. I think they should be shorter.
yeap - shorter.
Lock em in the cell and leave em there. No food no water. A hole to wizz and crap in. Thier family/friends will have to take the responsiblity of making sure they survive thier short (up to 10 years max?) prison sentence. If the criminal doesn't have any friends/family that love em enough to keep them alive, then i guess they should have been nicer to thier friends/family. Simple crimes could be as short as a month - or a couple of weeks - w/ worse crimes getting longer sentences. One would be suprised what one 6x6 room w/ hardly any contact w/ people will do to someone, especially if they have to rely on friends/families charity in order to survive. Would dramaticly bring down the cost to hold a prisoner. (i hear thats 30grand a year per prisoner in a max security facility? or is it more? - thats more than a lot of people i know MAKE a year being lawful)
I think this would have the effect of less macho proudness of having "done a stint" at X facility. It should also make prison look a LOT less desireable or "livable".
Not sure about wacking them to early should a death sentence be put on a criminal. I have issue w/ this being used eventually on non-offenders. (like that guy that just got out of prison, after serving 20 years, for a rape he didn't commit) Yes i believe NOW there is a minority that are wrongfully accused, i just think if we go capping people willy nilly w/o video of them doing the crime or whatever, then it will become abused and innocent people will be put to death by getting framed or by mistake or whatever. Not something i would agree with.
J/Tharg!
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Crime took a serious upward spiral when prison terms became more common than restitution.
As for the original question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?
As for the original question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
I cut the line at N-B-C weapons. Basically, anything else is fine, from carrying a FN P90 on a sling around to owning a Howitzer. I'm okay with municipal ordinances as well.
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
RPGs and grenades would be regulated. People can steal those and put them to extremely nasty use. It's not as easy for a thug to steal a howitzer and use it.
I'd require training and licensing to use explosive weaponry. Dynamite and normal home and garden explosives, you'd be able to buy them. People that sell them would have incentives to offer training or require training to be a customer.
For some explosive weaponry, especially semiautomatics like grenade launchers, you'd have to be a member of the reserves. No point in protecting your home with a MK19, but if you want to kick back on the porch and blow things up 300 yards down range, you're going to get the right freaking training.
A drunk with an AK can kill people fooling around in his backyard. A drunk with a MK19 will kill a lot more people.
Here's my ideal fantasy USA: Machineguns and explosives can be bought off the shelf with no background check (CANNOT BE INFRINGED means CANNOT BE INFRINGED) and no taxes or regulations.
Of course, hardened criminals and serious gangsters would be armed to the friggin' teeth, although they'd have a higher chance of being fragged, with a well trained team of men I could live in that fantasy USA that you guys dream of and it would require the national guard to put a stop to our reign of crime.
I'd require training and licensing to use explosive weaponry. Dynamite and normal home and garden explosives, you'd be able to buy them. People that sell them would have incentives to offer training or require training to be a customer.
For some explosive weaponry, especially semiautomatics like grenade launchers, you'd have to be a member of the reserves. No point in protecting your home with a MK19, but if you want to kick back on the porch and blow things up 300 yards down range, you're going to get the right freaking training.
A drunk with an AK can kill people fooling around in his backyard. A drunk with a MK19 will kill a lot more people.
Here's my ideal fantasy USA: Machineguns and explosives can be bought off the shelf with no background check (CANNOT BE INFRINGED means CANNOT BE INFRINGED) and no taxes or regulations.
Of course, hardened criminals and serious gangsters would be armed to the friggin' teeth, although they'd have a higher chance of being fragged, with a well trained team of men I could live in that fantasy USA that you guys dream of and it would require the national guard to put a stop to our reign of crime.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
