A Proposal to Fix the Issue with States Banning Firearms

[Tigger]

A well armed citesenry did little to prevent the rise of orginized crime that appeared in the 20s and 30s.

I didn't say it would stop crime. I said it will make the Government think twice before becoming too abusive.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I didn't say it would stop crime. I said it will make the Government think twice before becoming too abusive.

Where in the second ammendment does it say peoplehave the right to revolt?

 

[Tigger]

Where in the second ammendment does it say peoplehave the right to revolt?

April 19, 1775. The Second Amendment doesn't explicitly state ANY acceptable or unacceptable use for firearms; it simply indicates that the Right of the People to have, own, and use them may not be restricted by the Government. Go back to the Revolutionary War and take a look at how many of the arms used by the Colonial Army were owned by the State. You'll find its very few. Almost all (including their versions of artillery, mechanized infantry, and armor) were privately owned.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

April 19, 1775. The Second Amendment doesn't explicitly state ANY acceptable or unacceptable use for firearms; it simply indicates that the Right of the People to have, own, and use them may not be restricted by the Government. Go back to the Revolutionary War and take a look at how many of the arms used by the Colonial Army were owned by the State. You'll find its very few. Almost all (including their versions of artillery, mechanized infantry, and armor) were privately owned.

Or stolen from British arsenals

 

[blackjack50]

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

Well. Then there is the issue of devices used by police that require special training for LEOs. Flash bangs? Tear gas? And launchers for those devices. Also C2 explosives and breaching devices? Those could easily cause a problem either way. Area of effect and such makes these devices a danger to the public at large...and they should continue to be treated as they are now.

 

[Tigger]

Well. Then there is the issue of devices used by police that require special training for LEOs. Flash bangs? Tear gas? And launchers for those devices. Also C2 explosives and breaching devices? Those could easily cause a problem either way. Area of effect and such makes these devices a danger to the public at large...and they should continue to be treated as they are now.

Those are not self-defense tools, and therefore not covered.

 

[blackjack50]

Those are not self-defense tools, and therefore not covered.

Good point. But one must be careful about lines that are drawn. Tasers? Are those self defense? Because right now the legislation is equally as tough on them as guns...which is insane.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

States cannot ban firearms.

 

[Tigger]

States cannot ban firearms.

Tell that to California, New York, Massachusetts, and a half dozen other states plus Washington DC, and Chicago.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Tell that to California, New York, Massachusetts, and a half dozen other states plus Washington DC, and Chicago.

They cant "ban guns" they allegedly believe they can regulate guns but not ban them - not to mention Chicago is not a state and DC isn't as well.

However I agree, especially with Chicago..... These clowns in Chicago think they ARE the law... Rahm is a tyrant dressed in a clown gear er "uniform."

 

[Dragonfly]

The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that the Government is not better armed than the People have the opportunity to be. Thereby putting both groups on the same technological footing and more equal if/when the Citizenry needs to step up and restore order to the Government.

Sooooooo....nuclear weapons? Laser guided smart weapons? Drones? Stealth Fighters? Submarines? ICBM's? Depleted uranium tipped, armor piercing projectiles?

Anyone with the money should be able to own, operate, and deploy any one of these?

 

[jamesrage]

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

I love it especially number 3. Any anti 2nd amendment laws that apply to regular civilians should apply to government officials as well.Because too many times you have people in office who enjoy the protection of a gun or several guns regardless of where they go but those same people want to prevent the average person from having that same protection.

 

[Wiseone]

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

Sounds good to me, we can write a law that would ban all forms of firearms except to those private citizens who can pass an extremely through background check, waiting period, classes, instructions, demonstrate a need to own, etc, etc, and we'll do the same with the police only a small but extremely vetted and well trained force will have actual weapons. Everyone else turn in their weapons to the local police station and once the round up of civilian guns is complete the police will toss theirs into the pile, then will sail it out to the ocean and dump them over board or something.

Fair is fair.

 

[CLAX1911]

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

Sounds like Texas :shrug:

 

[HonestJoe]

In all of those examples a properly armed citizenry would have forced the law enforcement agents involved to be much more cautious in their approach.

Possibly, though "more cautious" would likely mean more shooting first and asking question later. After all, you gave two examples of heavily armed defenders that ended in tragedy and a third where the defenders were apparently not armed which ended with nobody being seriously injured.

Hell, Waco wouldn't even have happened, since the shotgun in question would never have been an issue.

I'd like to think the child rape would still have been though. Firearms (and drugs) were the excuse, not the reason, the authorities acted at Waco. That in itself was wrong but not in a manner relevant to this thread. The point is that the stand-off was inevitable and neither side was never going to stand down. Whether they could have legally held more or less firepower wouldn't make a major difference to the outcome.

Anyway, you've picked out a handful of controversial situations but ignore many thousands of situations where the authorities have a clear right and duty to enforce search or arrest warrants of citizens and intentionally ramping up the firepower in all of those situations as you wish to do would only serve to put everyone in greater danger.

My point was (intended to be) that the US Citizenry has every right to be at least as well armed and prepared as our LEOs. This is the most efficient means to ensure that the LEOs don't get too over-powering in carrying out their duties. It's literally that simple.

I'm not denying the legal right and I'm not even denying a moral right (here at least). You've still not demonstrated your specific point. You've not even explained how it is possible to measure the "firepower" of individual citizens compared to that of all of the law enforcement agencies which could be legitimately ranged against them in any given situation, let alone how implementing any form of "equality" on that basis would improve anything for anyone (even those who want to get away with breaking the law).

 

[Tigger]

Good point. But one must be careful about lines that are drawn. Tasers? Are those self defense? Because right now the legislation is equally as tough on them as guns...which is insane.

Tasers are definitely self-defense tools. They're actually banned here in MA, while firearms are only almost-banned.

They cant "ban guns" they allegedly believe they can regulate guns but not ban them - not to mention Chicago is not a state and DC isn't as well.

However I agree, especially with Chicago..... These clowns in Chicago think they ARE the law... Rahm is a tyrant dressed in a clown gear er "uniform."

They HAVE effectively banned guns in those states. Come to MA and try to buy a Kimber or most AR style rifles (among a vast array of firearms) from a dealer. It's not happening.

Sooooooo....nuclear weapons? Laser guided smart weapons? Drones? Stealth Fighters? Submarines? ICBM's? Depleted uranium tipped, armor piercing projectiles? Anyone with the money should be able to own, operate, and deploy any one of these?

No, not anyone with money. Anyone who proves they can safely use and secure the weapon, regardless of their level of wealth.

Sounds good to me, we can write a law that would ban all forms of firearms except to those private citizens who can pass an extremely through background check, waiting period, classes, instructions, demonstrate a need to own, etc, etc, and we'll do the same with the police only a small but extremely vetted and well trained force will have actual weapons. Everyone else turn in their weapons to the local police station and once the round up of civilian guns is complete the police will toss theirs into the pile, then will sail it out to the ocean and dump them over board or something. Fair is fair.

You are well aware that's not what I said, now what I am suggesting.

Sounds like Texas :shrug:

You say that like it's a bad thing?

 

[Tigger]

Possibly, though "more cautious" would likely mean more shooting first and asking question later. After all, you gave two examples of heavily armed defenders that ended in tragedy and a third where the defenders were apparently not armed which ended with nobody being seriously injured.

Not necessarily. In a lot of cases which don't involve the resources of the FBI and BATFE, it would likely mean picking and choosing who they really feel it's necessary to ramp up the entire "army" to go after. Tragically, it would likely take more than a few Law Enforcement funerals to get it through their heads that even though their target isn't a gang banger or a drug dealer that they may face truly armed resistance if they aren't there for a legitimate reason.

I'd like to think the child rape would still have been though. Firearms (and drugs) were the excuse, not the reason, the authorities acted at Waco. That in itself was wrong but not in a manner relevant to this thread. The point is that the stand-off was inevitable and neither side was never going to stand down. Whether they could have legally held more or less firepower wouldn't make a major difference to the outcome.

It might have made a difference in the siege starting to begin with. The FBI and BATFE were truly incompetent that morning on multiple levels and it lead to a massive black eye for the Clinton administration that never needed to happen except that Ms. Reno decided she wanted a show of force, no matter what. IF those agencies had truly understood what might be waiting behind those walls, they might have given a little more push-back to say "Let's just take him when he's in town on a regular basis rather than putting people at risk."

Anyway, you've picked out a handful of controversial situations but ignore many thousands of situations where the authorities have a clear right and duty to enforce search or arrest warrants of citizens and intentionally ramping up the firepower in all of those situations as you wish to do would only serve to put everyone in greater danger.

Yes it likely would. Which may be the only way to ensure that we move towards a system where those citizens (who are often multiple time offenders) don't get the chance to be a repeat offender because they're either in jail permanently or dead.

I'm not denying the legal right and I'm not even denying a moral right (here at least). You've still not demonstrated your specific point. You've not even explained how it is possible to measure the "firepower" of individual citizens compared to that of all of the law enforcement agencies which could be legitimately ranged against them in any given situation, let alone how implementing any form of "equality" on that basis would improve anything for anyone (even those who want to get away with breaking the law).

The firepower is very simple to measure.... the availability (legally) to the same weapons, equipment, and training that all Law Enforcement officers in that area have. I don't think it could be any easier to understand than that.

It improves things for the average citizen by making the Government once again fear the People, as it should.

 

[HonestJoe]

Not necessarily. In a lot of cases which don't involve the resources of the FBI and BATFE, it would likely mean picking and choosing who they really feel it's necessary to ramp up the entire "army" to go after.

No more than they do already. If they reach the conclusion that some kind of assault is the only option though (rightly or not), they would need to go in more aggressively and more heavily armed themselves.

It might have made a difference in the siege starting to begin with.

I don't see your proposal impacting the kind of weaponry the likes of the Branch Davadians had. They clearly couldn't care less about obeying the laws regardless of what they were.

Extreme examples make poor case law. Such ideas need to be assessed in the context of the day-to-day domestic incidents, not just rare quirks that make headlines.

Yes it likely would. Which may be the only way to ensure that we move towards a system where those citizens (who are often multiple time offenders) don't get the chance to be a repeat offender because they're either in jail permanently or dead.

Not just offenders though. Police officers, victims, innocent bystanders, the wrongly accused. You're wishing for a environment where we're all put at greater risk and you've still not demonstrated real practical benefit.

The firepower is very simple to measure.... the availability (legally) to the same weapons, equipment, and training that all Law Enforcement officers in that area have. I don't think it could be any easier to understand than that.

So you can have an automatic rifle and the 100 police officers outside can all have automatic rifles? Or maybe you can have 100 automatic rifles too? They can throw smoke bombs in to your house so you can throw smoke bombs outside? They use an APC to head-up an assault so you can have an APC parked on your driveway when they do? My point is the "level" of technology isn't going to be the key factor in most cases.

It improves things for the average citizen by making the Government once again fear the People, as it should.

I don't see why anyone needs to fear anyone else. Only bullies imagine a world of the feared and the fearful.

 

[Tigger]

Not just offenders though. Police officers, victims, innocent bystanders, the wrongly accused. You're wishing for a environment where we're all put at greater risk and you've still not demonstrated real practical benefit.

What if I told you I believe that greater risk IS the benefit.

I don't see why anyone needs to fear anyone else. Only bullies imagine a world of the feared and the fearful.

Fear and Pain are the only truly motivating factors for change in human behavior. Always have been and always will be.

 

[CLAX1911]

You say that like it's a bad thing?

You assume to much. How did I say that like it's a bad thing?

I love my state and it's gun laws. I am a hunting and gun enthusiast.

 

[Tigger]

You assume to much. How did I say that like it's a bad thing?

I love my state and it's gun laws. I am a hunting and gun enthusiast.

I've had the pleasure of visiting your great state on several occasions. If I hadn't happened to meet my fiance when I did, you might even have me living there at this point in time.

 

[CalGun]

LOL the anti's will be glad to add their regulations to the police; they do it now to appease the cops unions that vote for their bigger pay checks and phat pensions.

I wonder what gun owners, gun control proponents, and LEOs would think of this proposal for a Federal Mandate related to gun ownership that would....

1. Require all firearms, knives, batons, electro-shock devices, body armor and other self-defense tools which are available to Law Enforcement officers in a particular jurisdiction to be available to the law-abiding citizens of that area, without the requirement for additional licensing or fees/taxes. Essentially... anything the cops have the public can have too.

2. Ban all self-defense items which are not legally available to the general public in a particular jurisdiction from use by any Law Enforcement agent in that jurisdiction.

3. Require that the same regulations related to any modification, attachment, ammunition capacity, carry method, or other restriction on civilian owned firearms and self-defense tools be applied equally to all Law Enforcement officers in that jurisdiction as well.

 

[HonestJoe]

What if I told you I believe that greater risk IS the benefit.

I'd say you're welcome to it but you'd still need to convince other people to actually implement your plan to create it.

Fear and Pain are the only truly motivating factors for change in human behavior. Always have been and always will be.

I find it a little scary that you believe that but it hasn't changed my behaviour.

 

[CLAX1911]

I've had the pleasure of visiting your great state on several occasions. If I hadn't happened to meet my fiance when I did, you might even have me living there at this point in time.

The weather is nice, and living isn't that expensive. Lots ofpplaces to fish.