In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Would you support....
Rack Ops
Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
I'm not suggesting that this could/would happen, just wondering if there would be any support....
Suppose the Second Amendment was put up for debate....after days of furious debate, this compromise was settled upon.
1) Gun ownership is recognized as an individual right which provides for the common defense of America's citizens. No Federal or state government shall have the power to ban and/or confiscate any firearms held by law-abiding private citizens
2) All Firearms held by private citizens are to be registered with local law enforcement
3) All citizens who posses firearms must periodically demonstrate proficency with those weapons.
Would I support it? I don't know, but I'd be inclined to at first glace. My main objection to registration is the confiscation that I know would soon follow. Having firearms ownership firmly established as an individual right would calm those fears....
Just trying to spark an exchange of ideas...Any thoughts?
Suppose the Second Amendment was put up for debate....after days of furious debate, this compromise was settled upon.
1) Gun ownership is recognized as an individual right which provides for the common defense of America's citizens. No Federal or state government shall have the power to ban and/or confiscate any firearms held by law-abiding private citizens
2) All Firearms held by private citizens are to be registered with local law enforcement
3) All citizens who posses firearms must periodically demonstrate proficency with those weapons.
Would I support it? I don't know, but I'd be inclined to at first glace. My main objection to registration is the confiscation that I know would soon follow. Having firearms ownership firmly established as an individual right would calm those fears....
Just trying to spark an exchange of ideas...Any thoughts?
Comments
Pretty simple and straightforward. Yet the corrupt Elites with their handmaidens, anti-gun gun owners, have shredded it to tatters.
Putting voluntarily 'all guns registered'..to ANYBODY..is giving away the game. ANY governmental denials to the contrary..their only real function is to get bigger and more powerful...and they can do that only by taking from the citizens.
How often would those standards be raised...so as to limit gun ownership ?
How often is "must periodically "...and exactly how much is this going to cost...and one would have to be living under a porch to not admit that government programs raise prices rather often..
Plus..while the Second insists upon a 'well regulated Militia'..they never said that ONLY the 'Well regulated' may own guns...
The best course, gentlemen..is a simple, resounding demand of "HANDS OFF" to the government.
Although I'm not as hard-arsed or dedicated about gun ownership as many here obviously are, I cannot deny that it would be the long-awaited {for many anti's} beginning of the ultimate end {for gun owners}.
Just my 2 cents.
"Hands off" is, of course, the best policy.
After re-reading it, lets strike #3 from the list......now its a simple comparison. Is #1 worth #2?
Mandatory registration, by itself is abhorrent to me. I look to the examples of England and Australia. The main difference is that neither the Brits nor the Aussies look at gun ownership as an individual right.
By having private ownership, without restriction, enshrined in the constitution (clearly, without the danger of misinterpretation) we'd be taking a huge step forward. Most, if not all, of the 30,000 gun laws on the books would be struck down. We already have a de-facto registration in place, how much would we really be giving up?
If we're talking about "trading off" anything here, then it must be much more favorable for us - not the government.
Perhaps the specific term "not convicted of a felony" may be better as a starting point.
There are problems with that as well. The feds could easily redefine felonies......
Maybe it was a stupid idea from the start. I'm just tired of the constant attacks on gun owners.....I hold little hope for the future as well.
Honestly, I think we'll lose this fight......its only a matter of time [V]
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Perhaps the specific term "not convicted of a felony" may be better as a starting point.
There are problems with that as well. The feds could easily redefine felonies......
Maybe it was a stupid idea from the start. I'm just tired of the constant attacks on gun owners.....I hold little hope for the future as well.
Honestly, I think we'll lose this fight......its only a matter of time [V]
What if everything became a felony???
I might accept item one if it read; Gun ownership is recognized as an individual right, which provides for the common defense of America's citizens "with no restrictions on general appearance, make, model, color, caliber or magazine capacity". "No State or Federal Agency may maintain records of individual firearms purchases". No Federal or state government shall have the power to ban and/or confiscate any firearms held by law-abiding private citizens.
The only way I might accept any form of item two would be if it read; Firearms owners must register with LOCAL Law Enforcement as a Firearms owner. Make, model, calibers or number of firearms owned shall NOT be required for this registration.
Item number three goes to the round file. Too much latitude for abuse and ultimate restrictions based on individual levels of proficiency.
Now the ultimate question. If such a compromise were made, what makes you think the Government would actually honor it??
2. Registration? For what purpose? As in "What the heck is THAT supposed to accomplish?"
3. Propose substituting "To aid in a well regulated militia, all citizens shall have free use of military firing ranges at such times they are not in use by military personnel. All surplus arms and ammunition shall be offered for sale to the citizens of the US by the Civilian Marksmanship program."
Honestly, I think we'll lose this fight......its only a matter of time
By GOD, Sir...we have not yet BEGUN to fight !!!
We have handed over to weak reeds (the NRA/GOA .ect) the future of gun ownership...and are reaping the whirlwind from that stupidity !!
We have indeed lost battle after battle under the 'leadership' of incompetence..if not outright treachery...
But the war HASN'T BEGUN YET..and won't till the gun ban slams down.
Reach down insides yourselves...ask yourself.
AM I WILLING TO ABANDON AMERICA TO THE SCUM IN POWER..???? Dammit...I say NO
This is the way things ought to be now... Not only should they be unrestricted, but I'll even go so far as to make it a requirement.
quote:2) All Firearms held by private citizens are to be registered with local law enforcement.
If the gov't issued you a firearm, and you did not purchase it from them, then I would say, yes, the gov't does have a right to know where its property is. If, on the other hand, you buy a gun, no matter what type it is, no one should be concerned with it, other than you and the dealer. A receipt given, the exact same way one is given for all other purposes, and that is it.
Registration is a list of owners to be confiscated from, in direct contradiction to #1. It is not a crime fighting tool, and it never was.
quote:3) All citizens who posses firearms must periodically demonstrate proficency with those weapons.
This begs to ask, "or else what??". If they cannot be restricted or confiscated, then why would this even be a question??
If our gov't showed some sort of interest in the populace being well-armed and well-trained, and wanted its citizens to perform a good shoot every so often, so they would be able to help us with shooting troubles, then I would say, "Sure, thanks for the help." But if the alternative is to take our stuff away, they could easily make us have to demonstrate firearm proficiency above and beyond normal characteristics of firearm proficiency, weeding out people who are color-blind by using targets that cannot be seen correctly, eliminating people with sight problems by making them shoot without their glasses, shooting 500 yard targets without scopes, this is a bad idea.
I would have been all for it if their interest was to ensure a well-disciplined and able bodied militia, though.
quote:Maybe it was a stupid idea from the start. I'm just tired of the constant attacks on gun owners.....I hold little hope for the future as well.
Honestly, I think we'll lose this fight......its only a matter of time
By GOD, Sir...we have not yet BEGUN to fight !!!
We have handed over to weak reeds (the NRA/GOA .ect) the future of gun ownership...and are reaping the whirlwind from that stupidity !!
We have indeed lost battle after battle under the 'leadership' of incompetence..if not outright treachery...
But the war HASN'T BEGUN YET..and won't till the gun ban slams down.
Reach down insides yourselves...ask yourself.
AM I WILLING TO ABANDON AMERICA TO THE SCUM IN POWER..???? Dammit...I say NO
+1 !!!!!
Any politico who accepts any money from outside companies for bribery is tried for treason.
This idea (march) was advanced by a woman (Linda Thompson) back in the ninties.
Much discussion took place about it...the general concensus being that if some snaggly toothed moron didn't fire a shot at some policeman...some sniper WOULD....leading to a general killing off of lots of leaders and activists.
The corrupt Elites would love it.
Much truth contained in your post...and welcome to the forum.
Smitty
The 2nd amendment isn't just for certain people it's says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Where does it say law abiding? If a person has the right to be out on the streets in public then he's got a right to be able to protect himself otherwise he should be in prison. I'll registure my guns when the liberals are held accountable for their use of the 1st amendment.
Smitty
You seem to be cut from the same vine that I am, Smitty, but I'll tell you something.... Just because liberals are held accountable for the crap that comes out of their filthy sewers doesn't mean I'll register a damned thing to the gov't. What liberals do to be held accountable is wrong. Owning a gun, or many guns, no matter how insidious looking or misusable they may be, is not wrong. There's a difference, and I'm sure you'll agree once someone has pointed that out to you.
Other than that, you'll be a damned fine fighter for your rights, and my hat goes off to you (well, if I wore one, that is!!).
Welcome aboard...and unless you suddenly admit to being comfortable with the present state of Gun Rights...I would shake your hand and mean it.
I'm not suggesting that this could/would happen, just wondering if there would be any support....
Suppose the Second Amendment was put up for debate....after days of furious debate, this compromise was settled upon.
1) Gun ownership is recognized as an individual right which provides for the common defense of America's citizens. No Federal or state government shall have the power to ban and/or confiscate any firearms held by law-abiding private citizens
2) All Firearms held by private citizens are to be registered with local law enforcement
3) All citizens who posses firearms must periodically demonstrate proficency with those weapons.
Would I support it? I don't know, but I'd be inclined to at first glace. My main objection to registration is the confiscation that I know would soon follow. Having firearms ownership firmly established as an individual right would calm those fears....
Just trying to spark an exchange of ideas...Any thoughts?
Absolutely not. An infringement is an infringement and I don't need to justify, notify, or otherwise qualify to exercise my rights, period.