Current Topics
ICE - the new gestapo
by Ma_Republican
Today at 03:00 PM
small (SMR) and very small (VSMR) nuclear reactors
by pondering_it_all
Today at 08:13 AM
RoundTable for June 2018
by pdx rick
Today at 03:33 AM
gas lighting and the meda
by rporter314
Today at 03:02 AM
TrumpTrade
by Greger
06/20/18 09:36 PM
The Democratic Plan
by chunkstyle
06/20/18 06:15 PM
The Homeless
by jgw
06/20/18 05:47 PM
Dems are going to lose, in Washington, California and Louisiana
by rporter314
06/17/18 02:41 AM
Lying with Impunity
by matthew
06/16/18 10:13 PM
G6 plus one
by NW Ponderer
06/15/18 05:19 AM
The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy
by pondering_it_all
06/14/18 11:14 PM
Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in blink of an eye
by matthew
06/14/18 10:11 PM
Da Singapore Summit!
by pondering_it_all
06/13/18 03:29 AM
What if Star Wars never happened?
by pondering_it_all
06/10/18 05:33 PM
Anthony Bourdain
by pondering_it_all
06/10/18 05:20 PM
What it will take to curb the President
by pondering_it_all
06/09/18 05:48 AM
The failure of the public school system
by pondering_it_all
06/08/18 11:10 PM
Sorting it out
by logtroll
06/06/18 10:40 PM
Allam Cycle - Zero Emissions Nat Gas Power Plant
by pondering_it_all
06/04/18 08:23 PM
The American Dream
by Jeffery J. Haas
06/02/18 10:08 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16291 Topics
280436 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#306708 - 05/11/18 05:24 PM A Thought
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1960
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I was thinking, yet again, about the second amendment and how the anti-gun folks are doing (not great). I think the first thing they should change is the word 'control' when referring to guns. I think they should replace that with "regulate". I think that 'control' came from the NRA and the anti's just let it be and they made a mistake (there IS a difference between the two. The second thing is that the anti-gun folks should EMBRACE the second amendment. Its really pretty simple - the Second Amendment starts with "A well regulated". I have watched any number of pro-gunners actually say that 'their' Second Amendment does not allow anybody to regulate and everybody gives them a pass. Hogwash! The argument has been owned by the NRA for a very long time and them against should understand that and take it back!

I believe that "A well regulated" is the important part and all the rest actually isn't important at all. The 'regulated' part is the one that controls the agenda! The Pro-gun folks love to talk about the rest, ie "Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is, however, a reason the 'regulated' starts it all and folks should start to talk about that instead of militias, security, free state, rith to keep and bear, etc.

Top
#306715 - 05/11/18 10:14 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7620
Loc: North San Diego County
You can keep and bear arms, but you are not allowed to fire then unless you join the National Guard. That is perfectly compatible with the Second Amendment as written. Most incorporated cities have laws against firing guns that have stood up to court challenges for a very long time. We could change the laws to make it very expensive and illegal to fire guns anywhere but a National Guard firing range, and that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny too.

Just declare reloading illegal and charge $1000 per bullet, unless you have National Guard supply officer status.

Top
#306719 - 05/11/18 11:25 PM Re: A Thought [Re: pondering_it_all]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13949
Loc: Florida
Quote:
Just declare....


Uh, who is it has the authority to "just declare" anything of that nature? Guns are going nowhere, neither are bullets. And a time when Republicans are in charge of the entire government is probably not the best time to be seeking stricter gun laws.

I think Antonin Scalia and the supreme court most recently defined how the Second Amendment should be defined... The opening language can be ignored, but the right is not without limitations...

At least that's the jist of it, you can read it all Here
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde

Top
#306721 - 05/12/18 12:36 AM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7620
Loc: North San Diego County
Obviously Congress makes the laws and the President signs them, but not THIS Congress and not THIS President. Just thinking about what is possible without a Constitutional Amendment.

Top
#306724 - 05/12/18 01:21 AM Re: A Thought [Re: pondering_it_all]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13949
Loc: Florida
New assault rifle sales by special permit only, limit magazine sizes, ban bump stocks. Close the gun show loophole.
Establish a national database to keep domestic abusers and overall crazies from buying weapons, and put some teeth in the background checks.
Just some common sense changes.
No need to get all draconian with the $1000 bullets and mandated military service or whoever wrote the law will be voted out and the law changed. Slow and steady wins the race PIA. Millenials are probably our best hope to actually make those changes and it's gonna be a few years before they seize the reins from us Boomers and the Xers.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde

Top
#306739 - 05/12/18 10:17 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7620
Loc: North San Diego County
Sure, I'm for anything that can help. Right now, the first essential step is to keep the pressure up on politicians who are bought by the NRA. This could actually help in Democratic campaigns in November. The NRA has a massive presence in Congress. Far more than it's numbers justify.

Once you get rid of some of those bought and paid for Congressmen, Congress could pass some laws that implement sensible gun legislation. They couldn't outlaw personal artillery pieces the way it is now.

The most important is to implement a real mandatory reporting system for domestic abusers. Somebody knows these guys should not have guns long before they pick one up and start shooting. I've looked at the numbers and I'm not very worried about crazies. They are much more likely to hurt themselves than others.

Top
#306741 - 05/13/18 05:45 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1960
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Again, you are all fighting the battle that the NRA setup. None are fighting the REAL battle. The real battle is REGULATION! Nothing more, nothing less. The first thing that should be done is to stop using 'control' and starting using 'regulation'. That alone is a giant step. Then you have to literally embrace the Second Amendment. Once you are there then its time to actually talk about 'regulation' as that is the crux of it all. The NRA, not unlike the Drug Industry, the Banking industry, etc. is the same. The only difference is that they have conned everybody to believe that everybody that owns a gun is a supporter of the NRA. That is simply wrong but its rarely mentioned. The simple fact is that, if you buy a gun, you are automatically registered as a member of the NRA. I suspect one step would be to put a stop to that one. How about forcing dealers to offer a form, ie. "Check the appropriate box; A)Join the NRA, B)Refuse joining the NRA". Remember, the gun dealer that gets you signed up is using YOUR information to get that done. If you don't want your information used to sign you up then.......... That, at least would be a start. What I am suggesting is pretty simple. Calm down and whittle away and, little by little, you can win. I think the last poll I read had something over 70% of folks WANT regulations on guns!

The NRA can howl about how 'they' want to take their guns away. That is obvious baloney, which has been said over and over. What we really want is to regulate just as the Second Amendment says and that is the ONLY argument - all the rest is a waste of time.

Top
#306744 - 05/14/18 12:23 AM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7620
Loc: North San Diego County
Okay, but you can't pass ANY law with the word gun in it without the NRA going full blast against it, and getting all their Congressmen to oppose it. Even totally sensible things. If you want to be able to anything at all, you have to kick those people out first.

Top
#306745 - 05/14/18 04:23 AM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40892
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: jgw
....I think the first thing they should change is the word 'control' when referring to guns. I think they should replace that with "regulate".

2A'ers hate government, and they hate government regulation even more. Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#306746 - 05/14/18 04:23 AM Re: A Thought [Re: pondering_it_all]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40892
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
You can keep and bear arms, but you are not allowed to fire then unless you join the National Guard.


Bow
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#306747 - 05/14/18 04:22 PM Re: A Thought [Re: pdx rick]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15967
I agree with the seminal thought that initiated this thread: the focus of forearm legislation should be on "regulating the militia". There's a good, readable, history of "the militia" on Wikipedia. It's a good place to start.

Understanding the conception of the "organized" and "unorganized" militia, it would be conceptually easy to restrict possession of certain "arms, ammunition and military hardware" to the organized militia. Other, "non-martial" materiel could be allowed to the "unorganized" militia (i.e., everyone else), for sport, recreation, and personal protection uses - and for emergency use when called to service.

Note, I said "conceptually easy". Legislators are long out of practice in applying concepts to legislation. They tend to legislate based upon "notions" and lobbyist's creations. But reinvigorating the concept of "the militia" in the minds of the populace (and electorate) does a number of good things. People yearn to be "part of". Imagine the power of being "part of" the protection of society. "See something, say something" is exactly the kind of program that would be part of such an effort. Yes, it can be misused, but it is still "Civic engagement" - what used to be called, "good citizenship".

From there, when people feel invested in the process, they become involved. Given the cast of opinions in polling, good things can happen with an involved citizenry - like rational firearms laws, protection of the social safety net, etc.

Top
#306748 - 05/14/18 06:11 PM Re: A Thought [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6416
Loc: Highlands, Tx
"rational" and "firearms" are two words which can not be juxtaposed in the same argument.

I just read from the Conservative Dictionary the meaning of "regulate firearms" ... it means the government will take away the firearms or no righteous conservative will ever listen to any proposal with the word "regulate" in it. Beside, Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, it was a God given right to keep and bear arms.

Here is my proposal. Ban all weapons except the RPG (if your package needs to be LARGER, then small tactical nuclear devices would also do). The RPG has all the fire power anyone would need to defend oneself or to hunt BIG game and in the case of a tyrannical government, and perhaps adequate firepower to do what my ancestors did ... remove the yoke of absolutist tyranny by force.

Originally Posted By: Stephen Stills
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

You can't reason with these folks
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#306749 - 05/14/18 06:24 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15967
What I'm suggesting is we mobilize the populace... Then we don't NEED to reason with them.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#306751 - 05/14/18 08:28 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1960
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I forgot. The supremes have consistently stayed out of actual gun regulation. They have only weighed in when somebody wants to actually take the guns away from somebody. Another point is that existing gun regulations, in the State of Washington at least, are rarely exercised by the state. I have no idea why this is but I have been told that its true.

Top
#306752 - 05/14/18 11:29 PM Re: A Thought [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6416
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Then we don't NEED to reason with them

ahhh it is not enough to have the tyranny of the minority but we must also have the actually tyranny of the masses

In 1787 many people and delegates to the Constitutional Convention were unpersuaded on the efficacy of creating a new government, and yet in the next 10 months 3 writers argued the case for the creation of a new government. While their arguments and logic certainly persuaded some, there were always going to be a few who clung to the old ways.

In like manner the effort should probably be in educating the public and guarantees (a la BoR's) regarding responsible gun ownership. Already over 90% of Americans (the usual caveats on who was polled) support universal background checks.

Don't just out vote the opposition ... win them with reasonable, common sense arguments to your position
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#306753 - 05/15/18 12:32 AM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
Ujest Shurly Offline
newbie

Registered: 10/16/16
Posts: 302
Loc: Sterling Heights, MI, USA
"Don't just out vote the opposition ... win them with reasonable, common sense arguments to your position"

I know a few of the 'opposition' and they all are very reasonable people, two of them are my son(s)-in-law (both my daughters bleed blue, go figure). They all agree President Donald (My gut instinct is better than all the experts) Trump is bad, but not one of them will vote against him. Nor will they vote against the Republican congress. Nor do they support impeachment. With this mind set you can not reason and common sense is different to them, leaving out voting as the only solution.
_________________________
Vote 2018

Life is like a PB&J sandwich
The older you get, the moldery and crustier you get.

Now, get off my grass!

Top
#306756 - 05/15/18 06:42 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1960
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
There are a LOT more voters on the left and middle than supporters of the Jackass. The only problem is that they all tend to not bother with voting and the right does. One would think they would learn the lesson but.................

Top
#306858 - 05/30/18 10:08 PM Re: A Thought [Re: jgw]
matthew Offline
newbie

Registered: 03/24/16
Posts: 347
'
There needs to be intensive propaganda branding the NRA as the most dangerous terrorist organization in the USA.
.
_________________________
Once, weapons were manufactured to fight wars; today, wars are manufactured to sell weapons

It is far easier to deceive folks than to convince them they are deceived

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 41 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2