PDA

View Full Version : Bill of rights Re-write


NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 17:45
Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 17:51
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a state religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This does not mean erase religion from every aspect of public life against the wishes of the majority. The word "God" is not prohibited. Children are allowed to pray in school, those not wishing to do so may stand quietly.; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, however, there may be consequences for running your suck and the press must make every reasonable attempt to verify the veracity of all stories ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble with the appropriate permits and coordinations, if you attack the law, you are no longer considered peaceable and the law can bash you head in, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances and the government, in the form of its elected representatives, must respond or face immediate removal from office.

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 17:54
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to responsibly keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.

Missiles, bazookas, explosives, etc. are not considered arms for the purposes of this amendment.

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:04
Amendment III, IV


Good to go as is

Roguish Lawyer
03-19-2004, 18:05
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to responsibly keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.

Missiles, bazookas, explosives, etc. are not considered arms for the purposes of this amendment.

I am surprised to see that you are opposed to the Second Amendment. BLASPHEMY!

REAPER!

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:09
The rest or good to go as is with the caveat that they do not apply to non-US citizens or terrorists. If you are convicted of a felony, they may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:10
There finished! And it took 25 minutes.:munchin

Surgicalcric
03-19-2004, 18:20
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
...If you are convicted of a felony, they may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

FWIW, many states have a provision to allow Pardoned felons to purchase/own firearms. I do not have a list of those states handy but could look it up if anyone is interested in knowing which ones. Some will even allow for the granting of CCP's.

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:23
If you're pardoned, are you still a felon?

Surgicalcric
03-19-2004, 18:25
There is still a conviction, so I would say yes.

I know of a young man who is pardoned and it still shows on his NCIC report.

The Reaper
03-19-2004, 19:33
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to responsibly keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.

Missiles, bazookas, explosives, etc. are not considered arms for the purposes of this amendment.

Non-concur.

Crew served weapons are allowed.

They require the same proficiency as the small arms you delineated, and must be stored in multiple homes of the "crew", the ammo must be stored separately as well. Three members is the minimum crew. The weapon may only be placed in a ready to (dry) fire configuration for maintenance or crew drill, and may only be loaded with live ammunition on a permitted and properly safed range under the control of Federal or Militia officers.

Explosive possession is already permitted and regulated, and would require the same restrictions as stated above. Storage is limited to military approved ammunition storage magazines.

States receive a portion of their Federal revenue allocation based on the number of weapons proficient militia members and units.

Before you ask, there are no ranges cleared for a nuclear live fire, or private ownership of a weapon with a range greater than the range firing limits of respective ranges within the states.

The penalties for misuse or unsafe employment would be draconian, and there would likely be no second offenses. Big Boy's Toys, Big Boy Rules.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-19-2004, 19:35
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Kyobanim
03-19-2004, 19:40
I was reading that but I got a headache.

RL, does that mean I am at least partially right?

longrange1947
03-20-2004, 08:49
RL, can you explain why an amendment was required to arm the militia when Artical I section 8 of the constitution provides for arming of the militia?

You did a good job of finding the left coast version of the 2nd amendment. :D

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 13:19
Originally posted by longrange1947
RL, can you explain why an amendment was required to arm the militia when Artical I section 8 of the constitution provides for arming of the militia?

You did a good job of finding the left coast version of the 2nd amendment. :D

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Good rhetorical question!

The militia was already armed. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that it cannot be disarmed. The clauses above are express congressional powers.

BTW, Eugene Volokh is probably the leading conservative scholar in this area. He clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is one of the few conservatives on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would not call his views "left coast" views any more than I would call my views representative of Los Angeles lawyers. LOL

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 13:35
Originally posted by The Reaper
Non-concur.

Crew served weapons are allowed.

They require the same proficiency as the small arms you delineated, and must be stored in multiple homes of the "crew", the ammo must be stored separately as well. Three members is the minimum crew. The weapon may only be placed in a ready to (dry) fire configuration for maintenance or crew drill, and may only be loaded with live ammunition on a permitted and properly safed range under the control of Federal or Militia officers.

Explosive possession is already permitted and regulated, and would require the same restrictions as stated above. Storage is limited to military approved ammunition storage magazines.

States receive a portion of their Federal revenue allocation based on the number of weapons proficient militia members and units.

Before you ask, there are no ranges cleared for a nuclear live fire, or private ownership of a weapon with a range greater than the range firing limits of respective ranges within the states.

The penalties for misuse or unsafe employment would be draconian, and there would likely be no second offenses. Big Boy's Toys, Big Boy Rules.

TR

I am a member of the militia, and there is no &^%$&^% way anyone is going to condition my right to defend myself against an oppressive regime on any type of competency or other requirements, particularly if administered by the same regime I may need to overthrow.

I must say that I am shocked to see TR taking such liberal positions on this issue. :)

longrange1947
03-20-2004, 15:35
BTW, Eugene Volokh is probably the leading conservative scholar in this area. He clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is one of the few conservatives on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would not call his views "left coast" views any more than I would call my views representative of Los Angeles lawyers. LOL

I was trying to throw some humor into the game, but fell flat on my face as usual. :)

TR liberal!!!???? Now THAT is humor.

The Reaper
03-20-2004, 16:50
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I am a member of the militia, and there is no &^%$&^% way anyone is going to condition my right to defend myself against an oppressive regime on any type of competency or other requirements, particularly if administered by the same regime I may need to overthrow.

I must say that I am shocked to see TR taking such liberal positions on this issue.

Hey, I am not going to let you own anything that you are not qualified to operate and some lawyer might sue me into bankruptcy for selling to you. Liability?

Standardized classes will be taught, a written and practical safety and operating test administered, and qualification fire conducted.

You and two buddies want to form up a .50 M-2 MG crew, or an 81mm mortar team, you have to show me you can safely store, maintain, and operate it. That means that if you live in Rhode Island, you probably shouldn't own anything that could shoot outside the state, so you would pretty much be limited to rimfires there, as the locals seem to prefer.:D

Military provides training and testing, and perhaps some subsidy of weapons, ammo, safe storage, and ranges. A graduated license would be issued, a Kalifornia lawyer would probably be on a Restricted "E License", permitted only to own Red Ryder BB guns, and an SF Weapons Daddy like LR1947 could have an "A License" to acquire whatever he could afford to buy and feed.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 17:02
Originally posted by The Reaper
Hey, I am not going to let you own anything that you are not qualified to operate and some lawyer might sue me into bankruptcy for selling to you. Liability?

Standardized classes will be taught, a written and practical safety and operating test administered, and qualification fire conducted.

You and two buddies want to form up a .50 M-2 MG crew, or an 81mm mortar team, you have to show me you can safely store, maintain, and operate it. That means that if you live in Rhode Island, you probably shouldn't own anything that could shoot outside the state, so you would pretty much be limited to rimfires there, as the locals seem to prefer.

Military provides training and testing, and perhaps some subsidy of weapons, ammo, safe storage, and ranges. A graduated license would be issued, a Kalifornia lawyer would probably be on a Restricted "E License", permitted only to own Red Ryder BB guns, and an SF Weapons Daddy like LR1947 could have an "A License" to acquire whatever he could afford to buy and feed.

TR

So the State is going to have records of who owns what, what training they have, etc.?

TYRANNY!

What you are proposing is no different from handgun registration and various other means of gun control that I suspect you don't like. Or do you like them now? :)

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 17:22
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=67

The Reaper
03-20-2004, 17:22
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
So the State is going to have records of who owns what, what training they have, etc.?

TYRANNY!

What you are proposing is no different from handgun registration and various other means of gun control that I suspect you don't like. Or do you like them now? :)

No, the state has a record that I am allowed to buy and operate anything up to a certain level. They have no idea what I have actually bought, unless they agree to sell military property to me. There would be so many heavy weapons in private hands within 2 years that you could not recover them without unbelievable bloodshed, as our forefathers intended.

You have the appropriate license, like an OL or a pilot's license, you can buy anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

Those unwilling to go through the training and testing can continue to buy and carry the same civilian small arms they have to jump through hoops to buy today.

You want something that can obliterate my house from 5 miles away, I think you should be to operate it responsibly, or reinstate my right to lawfully pound the living snot out of any one of the people that I see every day who are demonstrating they are too stupid to live and are wasting perfectly good oxygen. You see how some people operate motor vehicles, another deadly weapon, admittedly usually short range and direct fire, you want to let them buy a long range, indirect fire weapon without any training?

How is that gun control (other than teaching people how to hit what they are aiming at)? Or are you looking for some lucrative lawsuits?

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 17:32
I see where you are going, but it seems to me that the training license records would be used by a tyrannical government in the same way as registration records. I don't see a benefit to requiring training that outweighs the importance of a heavily armed citizenry.

I don't have a problem with extreme penalties for criminal conduct such as obliterating your house.

I also would think about supporting mandatory firearms training for everyone, perhaps in high school.

But I think your proposal accomplishes little while undermining liberty greatly. I especially do not like the idea of having the military supervise the training. No offense, but that is the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Perhaps if you explain where you would draw the line, I might be persuaded of the error in my thinking.

The Reaper
03-20-2004, 18:16
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I see where you are going, but it seems to me that the training license records would be used by a tyrannical government in the same way as registration records. I don't see a benefit to requiring training that outweighs the importance of a heavily armed citizenry.

I don't have a problem with extreme penalties for criminal conduct such as obliterating your house.

I also would think about supporting mandatory firearms training for everyone, perhaps in high school.

But I think your proposal accomplishes little while undermining liberty greatly. I especially do not like the idea of having the military supervise the training. No offense, but that is the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Perhaps if you explain where you would draw the line, I might be persuaded of the error in my thinking.

A tyrannical government is prohibited from misconduct by nature of the weapons in the hands of the citizen militia, as the Constitution intended.

The military is qualified to provide firearms instruction as needed by members of the militia.

If you leave it up to the states, what sort of training requirements, ranges, and support do you expect for a state like Kalifornia to provide for its citizens?

The fact that I could posess a Class A license proves nothing about what I might, or might not have.

If you think that my system might undermine liberty, go try to buy a military issue weapon like an M-16 or M-4 in your local gun store today.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-20-2004, 18:31
Originally posted by The Reaper
A tyrannical government is prohibited from misconduct by nature of the weapons in the hands of the citizen militia, as the Constitution intended.

Agreed.


Originally posted by The Reaper
The military is qualified to provide firearms instruction as needed by members of the militia.

Agreed.


Originally posted by The Reaper
If you leave it up to the states, what sort of training requirements, ranges, and support do you expect for a state like Kalifornia to provide for its citizens?

I don't know. I suspect Georgia would do a better job. But you are saying these are necessary things, and I question that.


Originally posted by The Reaper
The fact that I could posess a Class A license proves nothing about what I might, or might not have.

True, but that would not stop the Gestapo from starting with the holders of Class A licenses. If I was combatting an insurgency and the government had these records, to me that would be extremely valuable intelligence information. I'd act on it.


Originally posted by The Reaper
If you think that my system might undermine liberty, go try to buy a military issue weapon like an M-16 or M-4 in your local gun store today.

I'm not comparing your system to the present one. I'm looking at it tabula rasa. I think I probably would like your system better than what we have now, at least if the training requirements exist only for "heavy" weapons like artillery. For small arms, I am opposed to any training or registration requirements whatsoever.

I still question whether there should be any training requirements at all. Your suggestion that there would be a critical mass of licensed weapons holders appeals to me, but what about those people who did not foresee the need to obtain a license when the need to arm themselves arises? I bought my shotgun immediately after the Rodney King riots. I had to wait for the waiting period to expire. That sucked. If there was a bad coup in this country, I'd want to be able to go buy whatever I wanted without having to get a license first. I don't have the need or desire to get such a license today, and I suspect I'm not alone.

myclearcreek
03-21-2004, 16:16
I did not anticipate the need for a firearm or that my neighbors would steal from me as soon as I became a single Mom. The fact that I have access to a gun does not mean I know how to use it. That is my fault. But do I want it mandated that I must have training to purchase a weapon? I do not think so with the information I have read thus far.

Re: Gun safety training in high schools.

The schools have enough problems and with Zero-Tolerance policies in effect on many campuses, I do not see this happening any time soon.

4-H Clubs have Shooting Sports, which can be very effective for this purpose. Eddie Eagle is another good program. Finding ways to expand existing programs outside schools seems a better alternative to me.

brewmonkey
03-21-2004, 17:19
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The rest or good to go as is with the caveat that they do not apply to non-US citizens or terrorists. If you are convicted of a felony, they may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

What about some of the violent misdemeanors that occur such as domestic assault/abuse/violence?

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 17:22
Originally posted by brewmonkey
What about some of the violent misdemeanors that occur such as domestic assault/abuse/violence?

I don't support them.

brewmonkey
03-21-2004, 17:27
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't support them.

I understand that, but in your version they would be allowed to procure weapons. How do you prevent that?

Surgicalcric
03-21-2004, 17:33
Change the classification of CDV from a misdemeanor to a felony.

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 17:35
Works for me.

brownapple
03-21-2004, 18:23
Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 18:35
Originally posted by Greenhat
Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

Incentives? The horror! You just made the list, buddy. LOL

Farmer40
03-21-2004, 18:53
The framework already exists to provide for relatively non intrusive registration (Oh my!) of weapons and for owners qualification to operate same. The DMV in the various states registers legally purchased and operated vehicles of all sorts. They have systems to inspect same annually to insure adequate standards of safety are met. They have systems in place to test and qualify citizens to operate all sorts of vehicles. The processes closely parallel those which could be emplaced to ensure that our citizens RESPONSIBLY keep and bear arms. Illegal or irresponsible use of firearms would still be punishable by law.
It is, after all, that sort of use of arms, not mere ownership, that injures or harms society.

Jeeze, you could even issue license plates to be attached to all registered weapons. Make 'em the size of car plates so you could tell at a distance whether or not they were legal. And it would make them really hard to conceal. What a concept!

longrange1947
03-21-2004, 20:22
And it would make them really hard to conceal. What a concept!

So much for the Comncealed to carry permit! Of course then all the muggers could tell when you were and were not carrying.

Wow what a concept! :D

DunbarFC
03-22-2004, 10:29
Originally posted by Greenhat
Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

That's currently the law here in Massachusetts

You have to take a State Police sanctioned NRA safety course in order to obtain a firearms license

Surgicalcric
03-22-2004, 10:36
DunbarFC:

Is that for a CC permit or to own any firearm?

DunbarFC
03-22-2004, 10:42
It's to own

The course itself costs $250 to take

Then the cost of the license itself

DoctorDoom
03-22-2004, 16:37
x

longrange1947
03-22-2004, 19:48
Originally posted by DunbarFC
It's to own

The course itself costs $250 to take

Then the cost of the license itself

So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

Surgicalcric
03-22-2004, 19:55
Originally posted by DoctorDoom
I can feel the yoke of your oppression being fitted for my neck already...

How so?

Surgicalcric
03-22-2004, 19:58
Originally posted by longrange1947
So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

I agree.

For 350.00 a person could take a tactical pistol course. I would like to see what the course consists of.

We are talking about the state in which Sen Kennedy owns, errr I mean serves. Not that I think back on it I am not really that suprised.


Edited: remove head from 4th POC.

DanUCSB
03-23-2004, 02:54
That (the high fees required for legal gun ownership) is exactly the technique that many of the more-pragmatic gun-control activists are trying right now. It's clear that there's too much opposition amongst the rest of us to push through many more actual bans or obvious laws, so they're taking a hint from the anti-tobacco forces. That tactic involves a three-pronged approach: first, stigmatize the product and users of the product. Anti-smoking people have done this quite well, as have many of the anti-gun folks in certain parts of the country (where I live, for instance). Second, fire class-action lawsuits at the manufacturers. This has worked fairly well for the anti-tobacco folks, relatively poorly for the anti-gun folks. Third, raise taxes to change behavior/price people out. These taxes may be in the form of the ever-popular 'sin tax', such as those that make a pack of cigarettes out here cost $5, or in the form of 'stealth taxes', like the aforementioned $350 in fees to purchase a firearm.

Sad thing is, it's pretty effective. It requires a lot of scaremongering, but scaremongering works often enough. It's the classic slippery slope. But as soon as you've got something demonized, people don't seem to have many problems with taxing it into submission, even if it does make self-defense the sole province of the rich (who can afford the fees) and the powerful (who can swing the licenses).

For what it's worth? I agree with The Reaper's version of the Second Amendment.

Oh, hell, I'm getting ahead of myself. First post. Been lurking a long time. Let me introduce myself. My name's Dan. Got out of the Army after four years as an 11B in Korea and Campbell, currently attending UC Santa Barbara to get my history degree, with an aim of re-enlisting under 18X. Pleased to meet y'all. :)

--Dan

DunbarFC
03-23-2004, 10:49
Originally posted by longrange1947
So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

There is a reason we are called "Taxachusetts"


As for what the course is according to the instructor that I asked it's an 8 hour safety and how to class

Surgicalcric
03-23-2004, 11:42
$250.00 for a safety class...I dont friggin think so.

DunbarFC
03-23-2004, 13:18
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
$250.00 for a safety class...I dont friggin think so.

I said no as a result myself

I am sure part of it is the guys fee, which I don't mind paying someone for their time. But it's still an outrageous amount

But that's what I get for living where I do

Surgicalcric
03-23-2004, 14:27
Originally posted by DunbarFC
I said no as a result myself

I am sure part of it is the guys fee, which I don't mind paying someone for their time. But it's still an outrageous amount

But that's what I get for living where I do

Damn I am in the wrong field.

That comes down to 30.00/hr per student. I may be presuming a bit much but I bet for 30.00/hr I could get some very good tactical handgun training from TR, TS, NDD, or any number of other QP's here. I would also bet it would cover much more than 'safety.'

How many people were in your class?

DunbarFC
03-23-2004, 15:59
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Damn I am in the wrong field.

That comes down to 30.00/hr per student. I may be presuming a it much but I bet for 30.00/hr I could get some very good tactical handgun training from TR, TS, NDD, or any number of other QP's here. I would also bet it would cover much more than 'safety.'

How many people were in your class?


I didn't take it

I thought it was far to expensive

GackMan
03-23-2004, 17:04
for $250 you could attend a NRA instructor development workshop and TEACH the freaking safety class.

Smokin Joe
03-23-2004, 19:52
Originally posted by GackMan
for $250 you could attend a NRA instructor development workshop and TEACH the freaking safety class.

Or sucker your department into paying for it. :D

CRad
03-24-2004, 01:21
Originally posted by Surgicalcric


We are talking about the state in which Sen Edwards owns, errr I mean serves. Not that I think back on it I am not really that suprised.

I thought Dunbar was talking about Massachusetts where Senators Kerry and Kennedy serve. Senators Edwards and Dole serve here in NC. For the record, Senator Dole, a Republican has worse record on gun control than Senator Edwards who is a Democrat.

In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.

NDD - I hope you aren't saying a person has to demonstrate this ability prior to be allowed to purchase a weapon since I think that would make it kind of hard to become handy with said weapon.

Makes me think of NC where you have to have auto insurance in order to get a driver's license regardless of whether or not you have a car. I don't see a lick sense in that.

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2004, 07:09
NDD - I hope you aren't saying a person has to demonstrate this ability prior to be allowed to purchase a weapon since I think that would make it kind of hard to become handy with said weapon.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Not hard at all. The instructors only need about 5 pistols for classes to cover the general bases.

Surgicalcric
03-24-2004, 07:15
Originally posted by CRad
I thought Dunbar was talking about Massachusetts where Senators Kerry and Kennedy serve. Senators Edwards and Dole serve here in NC. For the record, Senator Dole, a Republican has worse record on gun control than Senator Edwards who is a Democrat.


I was thinking Kennedy and typed Edwards. There is alot of that happening lately with me.

Razor, you may have been correct with that diagnosis.

Makes me think of NC where you have to have auto insurance in order to get a driver's license regardless of whether or not you have a car. I don't see a lick sense in that.

Same thing here is SC. Its called non-owners insurance. FWIW you cant buy a vehicle here without a license, which is more in line with NDD's proposal for weapon proficiency.

Roguish Lawyer
03-24-2004, 07:17
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
That's exactly what I'm saying. Not hard at all. The instructors only need about 5 pistols for classes to cover the general bases.


NDD, leader of Texans against the Right to Bear Arms

There is a sister cell in Pineland.

Ugh.

Roguish Lawyer
03-24-2004, 07:23
Weapons proficiency is a good thing and something to promote. But I am stupefied that people who claim to be pro-gun would CONDITION the right to buy a gun on it.


TYRANNY, I say again.

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2004, 07:34
I have seen, time and time again, gun owners that do not bother with the most basics of safety. I had a roommate in the military in a unit where gun-handling skills were supposedly a given, that I wouldn't have trusted with a slingshot. There are no "Whoops, time out - do over" once the firing pin strikes the primer.

I believe in responsible gun ownership. The days of every citizen carrying a weapon every where he goes for food and protection have mostly passed. I am tired of watching amatuers fumble fook around and flag me because they want to show me their latest and greatest. Having $300 is no indicator of intelligence. When you strap on a handgun, one should be able to assume a certain degree of professionalism, much like placing that beret on your head. My experience has shown the opposite to be true.

I have what I call the 2% rule. Only 2% of the world's population are trained, have common sense and are mature when the situation calls for it. The other 98% need a little green man on a light to know when to cross the street and aren't worth knocking in the head.

I don't think most of the population should be able to procreate, much less carry a Glock 19 into the Piggly Wiggly.

Roguish Lawyer
03-24-2004, 07:34
NDD, oppressor of novice shooters.

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2004, 07:49
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
NDD, oppressor of novice shooters.

I am not an oppressor, I am a professional.

You didn't see Ty Cobb playing beer league softball did you?

Get right or get off the fookin' range.

CRad
03-24-2004, 07:58
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
That's exactly what I'm saying. Not hard at all. The instructors only need about 5 pistols for classes to cover the general bases.

Well, I disagree with that. If I am going to learn to use a gun I want it to be my own gun and not some old thing that has been used and used and used again. I want it to be the one one I will be using all the time.

I'll bet Ty Cobb owned his own bat before he became a major leaguer.

Sacamuelas
03-24-2004, 08:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I am not an oppressor, I am a professional.

True on the last part but still an ... OPPRESSOR!!

I can't believe I am reading this thread on AProfSoldier. We are talking about regular firearms in this thread right? Excluding full auto/explosives/artillery and the like, I am shocked at the level of agreement concerning disarming the citizens of the USA. :munchin

BTW, Have you BEEN to a piggly wiggly lately? I carry a backup and extra ammo with me when I goto a pig'. LOL

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2004, 08:02
Ok, in your case, you can buy one first if Senior Bow and Arrow Man co-signs and accepts responsibility.:munchin

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2004, 08:07
shocked at the level of agreement concerning disarming the citizens of the USA.

Almost half voted for Gore and some will no doubt vote for Kerry - demonstration of gross mental incompetence is a disqualifying factor for gun ownership in my opinion.

:munchin

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 10:58
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Almost half voted for Gore and some will no doubt vote for Kerry - demonstration of gross mental incompetence is a disqualifying factor for gun ownership in my opinion.

:munchin

Voting too, right?

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:07
Originally posted by The Reaper
Hey, I am not going to let you own anything that you are not qualified to operate and some lawyer might sue me into bankruptcy for selling to you.

I suspect that I have exhausted your patience on this one, but let me ask one more time a question I think is important:

Do the restrictions you propose apply to small arms like handguns and rifles?

FWIW, if you believe that such small arms should be available without any training or other restrictions, I am prepared to withdraw the remarks about you being liberal and anti-gun. I'll even apologize. Anything to get you to testify against that communist anti-gun medic from Texas. :D

longrange1947
03-25-2004, 20:18
NDD and TR - You are full of Donkey Hooey! Why not make it so that only the rich can own a weapon? Crap people there are plenty of ways to learn to use a weapon responsibly. NDD, obviously you did not share your wealth of weapon handling knowledge with the geek room mate. Maybe if you had he would not have flagged the next time.

Guys, it is the responsibility of ALL gun owners to educate NOT be the all knowing and all slamming of those with less knowledge. TEACH them, They do not need a 250.00 class on it. NDD, when you were a young private, could you have afforded that money? TR, why can't the friends teach responsible gun handling, why must it be a sanctioned course costing big bucks? OH yes, that excludes the poor that do not need to defend themselves.

I agree with RL, you guys are closet gun banners!!!:mad:

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:32
Originally posted by longrange1947
NDD and TR - You are full of Donkey Hooey! Why not make it so that only the rich can own a weapon? Crap people there are plenty of ways to learn to use a weapon responsibly. NDD, obviously you did not share your wealth of weapon handling knowledge with the geek room mate. Maybe if you had he would not have flagged the next time.

Guys, it is the responsibility of ALL gun owners to educate NOT be the all knowing and all slamming of those with less knowledge. TEACH them, They do not need a 250.00 class on it. NDD, when you were a young private, could you have afforded that money? TR, why can't the friends teach responsible gun handling, why must it be a sanctioned course costing big bucks? OH yes, that excludes the poor that do not need to defend themselves.

I agree with RL, you guys are closet gun banners!!!

:lifter

LOL

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 20:37
The geek roommate attended the same courses of instruction I did. Had another "operator" ND a 12 gauge and slay the tailgate of an M880.

I refuse, at this juncture of my life, to continue to attempt to overcome the lack of education of children other than my own.

I have learned that some people are truly just stupid and there's nothing I can do about it.

I am at peace with it.

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:43
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I have learned that some people are truly just stupid and there's nothing I can do about it.

I am at peace with it.

Obviously, you're not. You're trying to regulate to address the stupidity. And not in a sensible way either.

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 20:46
How so?

Sacamuelas
03-25-2004, 20:47
Originally posted by longrange1947

I agree with RL, you guys are closet gun banners!!!

I concur. I am still shocked.. I viewed Reaper as a pro-gun rights ally before this thread???
Signed,
owner of guns that would not be allowed to own a gun in NDD/TR's "People republic of Bradybill-land" due to the lack of completion of some ridiculous $250 safety training course by some fat guy at a gunshop that took a one week "trainer" seminar from the ATF.:munchin

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 20:48
Do you have to show to a competent authority a basic level of ability in handling an automobile before you are allowed to have a driver's license?

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 20:50
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I concur. I am still shocked.. I viewed Reaper as a pro-gun rights ally before this thread???
Signed,
owner of guns that would not be allowed to own a gun in NDD/TR's "People republic of Bradybill-land" due to the lack of completion of some ridiculous $250 safety training course by some fat guy at a gunshop that took a one week "trainer" seminar from the ATF.:munchin

I never said that. What I am talking about is driver's ed for guns. You can go to Blackwater or Gunsite or Thunder Ranch. Or, for $30 an hour, I will come to your house.

Surgicalcric
03-25-2004, 20:50
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
...due to the lack of completion of some ridiculous $250 safety training course by some fat guy at a gunshop that took a one week "trainer" seminar from the ATF.

For some reason I find the idea of taking a firearm safety class from the ATF very funny. Something about target discrimination and Waco, Tx...

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:51
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to responsibly keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.

Missiles, bazookas, explosives, etc. are not considered arms for the purposes of this amendment.

Like so.

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Or, for $30 an hour, I will come to your house.

OK, when do we start? :cool:

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:54
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Do you have to show to a competent authority a basic level of ability in handling an automobile before you are allowed to have a driver's license?

Yes, but there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Surgicalcric
03-25-2004, 20:55
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
...I have learned that some people are truly just stupid and there's nothing I can do about it.

Hell if it were not for stupid people I would damn near have to find another line of work.

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 20:58
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Yes, but there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Understood. But the same reason for it holds true IMO. That is why I am re-writing the BofR. Your right to own a weapon ends where it infringes on my right to life. There aren't very many other Constitutional rights I can think of that may get someone killed.

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 21:02
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Understood. But the same reason for it holds true IMO. That is why I am re-writing the BofR. Your right to own a weapon ends where it infringes on my right to life. There aren't very many other Constitutional rights I can think of that may get someone killed.

There are criminal penalties for shooting people intentionally or recklessly. There are civil penalties for doing so negligently. This should be sufficient to address your concerns.

I am not aware of a large number of people being killed or injured by guns domestically. Certainly not enough people to warrant eliminating the most important protection against a tyrranical government.

Sacamuelas
03-25-2004, 21:06
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I never said that. What I am talking about is driver's ed for guns. You can go to Blackwater or Gunsite or Thunder Ranch. Or, for $30 an hour, I will come to your house.

In effect, you are saying that I am to incompetent to handle the numerous firearms I have owned for the last few DECADES? That I am unsafe with my weapons. That it should be unlawful for me to carry the weapon I have had strapped to my side whenever feasibly possible during the last few years since I obtained a CCP because I have not paid a "professional" $30 bucks an hours to teach me the shooter's version of driver education type basics?

I say that's completely BS.
It doesn't take an "operator", cop, fed, or gunshop nerd to teach me not to point a gun at someone, always treat the weapon as if it is loaded, always check for myself to ensure a weapon is unloaded even if I watch the person who is handing it to me do it, never leave a loaded firearm in an accessible location for children, always look downrange of the aiming point to ensure safety, how my particular weapons functions and works, etc. I have been around weapons my whole life.. never shot anybody and find handling a weapon to be a much simpler/less complicated/safer task than driving a car.

NousDefionsDoc
03-25-2004, 21:17
The criminal and civil penalties are punishment after the fact. They don't bring back a dead child.

Sacamuelas, somebody piss in your cheerios this morning? Handling a weapon, like driving a car, is not done on instinct for most people. It is a learned skill and perishable. Just because you have been careful and fortunate for 30 years does not mean it is the correct way or that it will work for the public. And don't assume that the rest of the population is as intelligent or conscientious as you are. They aren't. There's a reason you are on this board instead of Bubba's Shotgun World Yeehaw .com Hell, you may even fall in the 2% that are trainable.

I don't know if you are safe and competent or not, I have never seen you handle a weapon. You can say the same thing about me. What I do know is that if you are, you are the exception not the rule in the big world.

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 21:55
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The criminal and civil penalties are punishment after the fact. They don't bring back a dead child.

:boohoo

Sacamuelas
03-25-2004, 22:02
I am not mad NDD. I guess I am coming off that way tonight. AL is reading me the same way in another thread.


I might support a training course is if it was included into the public education curriculum. It would have an elementary education safety portion as well as a high school level operation/handling portion later in everyone's education. That way, it is free...it is given to everyone for access, and it would not be some new database for the Gov. to keep track of us with since everyone would have taken it.

Why so young (elementary school) to do the beginning training? Because it would save a few of those precious lives NDD talked about due to more awareness/knowledge by children that didn't grow up in a firearm proficient household but still visit houses where they are kept.

What do you think NDD? RL, am I giving in and becoming a gun grabber with that suggestion? :munchin

brownapple
03-25-2004, 23:16
Encourage all to carry weapons and those who are not willing to become proficient will weed themselves out of the gene pool quick enough. You don't need laws to do that.

DanUCSB
03-26-2004, 02:38
Like everything else in life, and especially in the Bill of Rights, it comes down to weighing competing interests. For example, driving motor vehicles. Yes, we would save lives if we required all drivers to be over 30, to drive no faster than 15 mph, and wear crash helmets and Nomex in their vehicles. However, we judge that the deleterious effect that would have on our society is not worth the potential savings in safety. Gun ownership is similar. As NDD pointed out, yes, with expanded gun ownership, there will be accidents (even a few dead children). That's just statistics... if you increase the number of hair dryers, there will be an increased number of hair dryer injuries.

As such, when looking at gun ownership, we have to compare the competing interests. Those being, the increased number of accidents versus the benefit of remaining a free people. How many people have been killed in the last hundred years by their OWN governments? 100 million? More? And why is that? Because they had the ability to defend themselves removed. Compared to that risk? I'll take the risk of accidents (especially as that is something education can mitigate) any day, and twice on Sunday.

--Dan, says, "God made Man; Sam Colt made them equal."

Radar Rider
03-26-2004, 04:25
Originally posted by DanUCSB
As such, when looking at gun ownership, we have to compare the competing interests. Those being, the increased number of accidents versus the benefit of remaining a free people. How many people have been killed in the last hundred years by their OWN governments? 100 million? More? And why is that? Because they had the ability to defend themselves removed. Compared to that risk? I'll take the risk of accidents (especially as that is something education can mitigate) any day, and twice on Sunday.
The more that this topic is debated, the more I appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers. It is infinitely more difficult to impose a dictatorship on an armed citizenry as opposed to one that has no recourse but to sacrifice themselves in a futile effort to oppose the imposition of a fascistic regime. Semantics and dictionary definitions aside, an armed citizenry is anathema to those that fear the common man having an enhanced self defense capability. Jackbooted thugs might think twice about kicking in your/my door if they knew that the occupant (me!) had a weapon capable of ending their intrusion IMMEDIATELY (me blasting them with my 12 gauge, or even blasting away with a clip of 17 9mm bullets comes to mind).

One of the great features of the government of the United States of America is that of Checks and Balances. When the common citizen loses his RIGHT to posess a firearm, then the founding fathers lose their importance. If THAT happens, we might as well join the French and just fucking surrender to the whim of the day.

The USA WILL NOT do that. My right to own/possess a gun isn't just some argument; it's a matter of national survival!

NousDefionsDoc
03-26-2004, 09:26
Originally posted by Greenhat
Encourage all to carry weapons and those who are not willing to become proficient will weed themselves out of the gene pool quick enough. You don't need laws to do that.

I actually agree this is the best way, but it takes too long and they tend to take some of us with them. And then there are always those lucky few that slide by for for the last few DECADES :D

brownapple
03-26-2004, 09:49
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I actually agree this is the best way, but it takes too long and they tend to take some of us with them. And then there are always those lucky few that slide by for for the last few DECADES :D

Bitch, bitch, bitch... who told you life was going to be easy or fair?

NousDefionsDoc
03-26-2004, 09:52
Nobody. But if I've got to go, I would appreciate the courtesy of the doer at least being a professional. It would be embarrassing to go at the hands of an amatuer. LOL

brownapple
03-26-2004, 10:06
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Nobody. But if I've got to go, I would appreciate the courtesy of the doer at least being a professional. It would be embarrassing to go at the hands of an amatuer. LOL

Che was a "professional". It would be a lot more embarassing to go at the hands of his sort than a competent amatuer. :D

Roguish Lawyer
03-26-2004, 11:46
So, it looks like TR is going to allow Longrange's remarks to slide by without any response. Sounds like a concession to me. :D

NousDefionsDoc
03-26-2004, 16:21
Originally posted by Greenhat
Che was a "professional". It would be a lot more embarassing to go at the hands of his sort than a competent amatuer. :D

Professional idealogue. He had an ND and shot himself in the cheek before the Bay of Pigs. He was an amatuer gunman, depsite DECADES of fighting. Piss poor training in Mexico.

Roguish Lawyer
03-26-2004, 19:09
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Professional idealogue. He had an ND and shot himself in the cheek before the Bay of Pigs. He was an amatuer gunman, depsite DECADES of fighting. Piss poor training in Mexico.

GH: He's missing your point entirely, don't you think?

brownapple
03-26-2004, 20:19
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
GH: He's missing your point entirely, don't you think?

I think he just illustrated my point. LMAO

NousDefionsDoc
03-26-2004, 20:22
I get the point.

Roguish Lawyer
04-07-2004, 00:29
I'm bumping this in case someone I invited to the board checks it out.

Sigaba
05-24-2009, 17:52
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to responsibly keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the interest of public safety, you must demonstrate: training by a competent trainer, the ability to responsibly store, manipulate and fire the weapon.


Crew served weapons are allowed.

They require the same proficiency as the small arms you delineated, and must be stored in multiple homes of the "crew", the ammo must be stored separately as well. Three members is the minimum crew. The weapon may only be placed in a ready to (dry) fire configuration for maintenance or crew drill, and may only be loaded with live ammunition on a permitted and properly safed range under the control of Federal or Militia officers.

Explosive possession is already permitted and regulated, and would require the same restrictions as stated above. Storage is limited to military approved ammunition storage magazines.

States receive a portion of their Federal revenue allocation based on the number of weapons proficient militia members and units.

....

The penalties for misuse or unsafe employment would be draconian, and there would likely be no second offenses. Big Boy's Toys, Big Boy Rules.



Standardized classes will be taught, a written and practical safety and operating test administered, and qualification fire conducted.

Military provides training and testing, and perhaps some subsidy of weapons, ammo, safe storage, and ranges. A graduated license would be issued, a Kalifornia lawyer would probably be on a Restricted "E License", permitted only to own Red Ryder BB guns, and an SF Weapons Daddy like LR1947 could have an "A License" to acquire whatever he could afford to buy and feed.


No, the state has a record that I am allowed to buy and operate anything up to a certain level. They have no idea what I have actually bought, unless they agree to sell military property to me. There would be so many heavy weapons in private hands within 2 years that you could not recover them without unbelievable bloodshed, as our forefathers intended.

You have the appropriate license, like an OL or a pilot's license, you can buy anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

Those unwilling to go through the training and testing can continue to buy and carry the same civilian small arms they have to jump through hoops to buy today.

You want something that can obliterate my house from 5 miles away, I think you should be to operate it responsibly, or reinstate my right to lawfully pound the living snot out of any one of the people that I see every day who are demonstrating they are too stupid to live and are wasting perfectly good oxygen. You see how some people operate motor vehicles, another deadly weapon, admittedly usually short range and direct fire, you want to let them buy a long range, indirect fire weapon without any training?

How is that gun control (other than teaching people how to hit what they are aiming at)? Or are you looking for some lucrative lawsuits?

General questions for any who may be interested in reviving this discussion of an augmented Second Amendment.


Who would establish and enforce the standards for proficiency?
How would the records be kept? Who would keep them? Who would have access to the data? Could the data be used for studies on gun ownership and crime rates?
How severe would the penalties be for the unlawful ownership and operation of weapons?
What would be the mechanism and the agency of enforcement? (Who is going to go get the crew served weapon if the permits lapse?)
If the armed forces were to perform the training, would a particular service would be in the lead?
As training can be a combination of education and acculturation (indoctrination, if you like), what happens if people conducting the training sense something 'wrong' or 'off' about a person being trained (e.g. a want to be Rambo, or an airhead)?
What would be the fee structure and time table for getting and staying certified? Would the fees be tax deductible?
Would insurance be required?