1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if pro-gun folks wrote the laws?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by reggie_love, Dec 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie_love

    reggie_love Member

    Dec 15, 2012
    In the wake of recent tragedies, we're seeing a lot of calls for gun control. I think we will see something big happen very soon, whether we like it or not, and it will have the potential to set our freedoms back years if not centuries.

    I actually am starting to think something does need to be done, but not in the way people usually mean when they say that.

    The way I see it, the NRA plays defense against bad solutions. This is important, but not a complete picture. I honestly feel like we could have gun laws that, instead of restricting rights (however "reasonably" :rolleyes:), secure rights and their legitimate exercise. But, since we're only playing defense, there's a huge lack of ideas on our side when something bad comes along and the masses scream "there oughtta be a law!"

    Think about it: people often make the analogy "well if you need to be regulated to drive a car, you need to be regulated to own a gun." Sounds reasonable enough to many (I know, right vs. privilege, but a lot of people think like this anyway). The problem with that is that nobody writing car laws hates cars. The only people who write gun laws hate guns (or at the very least, think their only legitimate purpose is for hunting or sport). Of course we're always opposing laws, they're always written to hurt us!

    But what if we had laws that made it safer to exercise our rights without stepping on them? What if we had the Jeff Coopers of the world directing the modern application of the constitution, rather than the Dianne Feinsteins?

    I think of something like CCW licensing. In many states, right to carry legislation has, for all practical purposes, enhanced the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights. The best of these policies incorporate shall-issue licensing, such that the law is explicit that you can't be denied for any reason other than being disqualified by concrete factors like criminal record, failing the test, etc. Training is built in. Anybody who is able to can exercise their rights, they just need to develop skills.

    I would argue this tips the scale in favor of legitimate gun owners, who want to use their firearms intelligently, and force those who seek to exercise their rights to do so similarly. No prohibition involved, just encouragement of responsibility built into exercising one's rights.

    What if there were shall-issue licenses for guns in general? I think this would not only keep the law from punishing you and I and everyone else on forums like these (who use guns responsibly and recognize their importance), but also further our interests by making more of us. Want a gun license? Sure, it's your right, but first you have to know your weapon and how best to use it, and here are the tools to do so if you're not there already.

    I think the reason licensing has been so bad and ineffective has been because the bulk of it's been written by people who hate guns, and really want them banned but try to pass of their efforts as "common sense restrictions." These are the people who say "It should be harder to get a gun, make them jump through hoops!" They claim their laws wont affect you and me, they'll just stop the crazy and the criminal, but it's clear that they don't. What if instead, we'd have the people like Jeff Cooper, who recognize the important difference between an armed citizen and a guy who just owns a gun.

    You're not handing your rights over to the state, you're just putting a process in place that makes sure those rights are protected and carried out smoothly.

    Think Switzerland, everyone gets an assault rifle, but you learn that it's a serious thing and you have to train, and you get criminality drummed out of you before you can put your rights into action, but you always have access to those rights. The mentally ill get found out before they can hurt the public. I think that's the real meaning of well-regulated militia, none of this "it's just for the national guard" nonsense. You aren't changing the right or getting rid of it, you're not restricting it or infringing upon it, you're just making sure it's implemented in the most effective way.

    I don't know, what do you guys think? I am always wary of gun laws, but I really think that if we had the right minds go to work on them, we could take a new approach that makes our rights more effective AND detracts from those who abuse them. That's really our problem here: it's not guns, it's gun abuse. When we separate one from the other, we get more freedom and a smoother ride. We have historically, after all, "regulated" communication technologies without restricting the rights they foster, in such a way that we have a more powerful first amendment.

    Thanks for reading. Be nice to me, I'm new to this forum!
  2. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Nov 13, 2008
    You might be interested in reading through a previous discussion that we had regarding improving firearms ownership: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686436

    In that thread, there was a proposal to have the federal government prohibit state governments from creating more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Near the end, posters were quibbling about state's rights being trampled.
  3. youngda9

    youngda9 member

    Aug 21, 2008
    Remove all "gun free zones"...they are "disarmed victim zones" Even the schools, for the children ;)
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Feb 27, 2011
    A thousand times "NO"! This would be putting an infringement on a constitutional right. Besides, what would be the purpose, other than opening the door to future additional restrictions? Suppose a collector has hundreds of guns. Would that be deemed "unreasonable"? Would "safe storage" requirements be imposed? Would you have to get an "arsenal license"?
  5. critter

    critter Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    southeast AR
    Youngda9 is a man after my own heart!!!!
  6. HDCamel

    HDCamel Member

    Sep 7, 2011
    The US Constitution was written by pro-gun folks.
  7. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Feb 6, 2007
    Yep....and so have been many of the fairly new CCW laws in many states. Many states have enacted "hunting is a constitutional right" laws in the last few years also. The allowing of guns in National Parks is a fairly new law also. Support for gun owners did not die with Ben Franklin.
  8. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    May 2, 2012
    The Texas Hill Country
    Is the only solution to bad laws to write "good" laws?

    All government is coercive by nature; law is enforced BY force, or threat of it.

    What if the solution to bad laws is NO law? A prohibition on even HAVING a law made on an issue? Sound crazy? Anarchistic? Letting individuals decide and FORBIDDING government regulation?

    This is EXACTLY what our Founders did! Their solution to bad laws regulating religion, for example, was that "Congress shall make no law"!

    Incidentally, their choice of words regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms was


    Somehow, somewhere along the way, many people have acquiesced to the odd notion that in America the government can do anything the popular majority will allow. THIS IS FALSE.

    Much of what our Founders were busy about was explaining, patiently and in writing, what the United States government was NOT ALLOWED TO DO; that there is a limit to governmental authority; that said limit being described and defined by rights of citizens over which the government has no say and by which it is bound.

    Our Founders were people accustomed to using the word "NO".
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  9. Crashbox
    • Contributing Member

    Crashbox Member

    Jan 12, 2010
    Lynden, Washington
    Indeed! The "Gun-Free Zones" are THE prime target for terrorists and psychopaths; in my opinion they do nothing but create human fish in a barrel for them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page