Well here it comes...

[JPH]

Let me step up on this soapbox and let some things roll out here that I have been thinking about. Please hang with me here, as many of you know I am not the greatest written communicator, additionally it is mid-terms and my brain is fried from papers and studding.

HR1022 is their bill

What is our bill???

Now stop, before we all get on this soapbox, for me and I am sure for many of you, “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” says it all…

BUT… I work in EMS and that in addition to being educated and living in the world we do today I have been exposed to many of the world’s crazes… I can understand and see a need for some gun control, just not BS legislation that is imposable to enforce, doesn’t prevent anything, and makes it imposable for right minded (maybe a pun, maybe not) upstanding citizens to exercise their constructional rights…

SO…

Why don’t we write our own comprehensive gun control bill and let it start from the grass roots up, get organizations behind it, and try and use the process for us this time???

Here is a bulletin list of what is on my mind, but this is just the start… IMO…

-- First it must clean all other gun control laws off the books, ALL OF THEM

-- Second it must be federal, and state that no state can modify or infringe on this law. I don’t know how this would work, but the 14th amendment is suppose to do this for the constitution, sometimes it works (as in the first amendment), other times it doesn’t (as in the second amendment)…

-- Third there would need to be mandatory sentences for offenders, this way everyone in LE has but one law to worry about and one law to enforce. In the end it wouldn’t matter where you got the gun, but rather do you have a license to have that gun…

-- Forth this law would have to set up a licenser system and education system that would provide access to nearly all arms.

-- Fifth it would destroy any and all records of who owns arms and who doesn’t…

A bit more on the license before I let everyone chime in…

-- Just like a drivers license, different classes give you different privileges and require different educations and requirements…

-- There would have to be a reasonable minimal fee like there is for CCW in most states, caped so some jack!@# anti-gun sheriff somewhere doesn’t charge $5000 for a shotgun license…

-- The license would NOT allow tracking or record keeping of what you own. This license isn’t about how many you have, how many you bought at once, or what they are… It is about “Have you been cleared to own them”

Examples (just a few)

-- Class A At age 16, with completion of safety class and hunters education class, and a federal background check an individual can have in their possession any hunting arm*. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal. The class could be mandatory in high school just like lib and law is in the state of Missouri, parents could prevent their kids from getting a license by contacting the state just like they can prevent their kids from getting a drivers license until 18yoa… Also note that with a class A you can’t buy, just possess…

-- Class B At age 18, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession any non restricted small arm**. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.

-- Class C At age 21, with completion of a safety class, a legal use of force class, possession of a class B license, and a federal background check, an individual may carry concealed any non restricted small arm**. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.

-- Class D At age 21, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession any restricted small arm***. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.

-- Class E At age 21, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession destructive device****. License valid for 2 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.

* Hunting arm to include low capacity shotguns and rifles
** Non-restricted small arm to include any arm not capable of select or full auto fire or with a barrel length longer than 16”
*** Restricted small arms to include arm capable of select or full auto fire or with a barrel length of less than 16”
**** Destructive devices to include explosives and or reactive ammunitions…

OK so I know nothing about “destructive devices” as I have called them, and I am not a legislator, lawyer, or even a good writer.

This moment on the soapbox is only intended to “set the tone” and see what you all think, so let me know.

Stepping down,
NEXT…
JPH

[Peregrino]

License (1) formal or legal permission to do something specified (2) a document etc, indicating such permission. License denotes priviledge. Why do you want to convert a right guaranteed in the constitution into a priviledge subject to the whims of government? Your use of the driver's license to illustrate your point is "interesting". Driving is not a right - it's a priviledge and subject to revocation for just about any reason the government or its agents choose. In case you missed it, informed legal opinion (on both sides - much to the liberals chagrin) is that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Your scheme is just another tool for activist judges and liberal legislators to further restrict already threatened rights. FWIW - You might want to study some 1950's era Civics textbooks (to the best of my knowlege there are no modern equivalents - certainly nothing untainted by the current liberal bias in education). They would go far towards rectifying an apparently incomplete understanding of the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. Peregrino

[spectre919]

JPH,

I'd even go as far as to say you may also want to dive into the Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, and maybe even some Antebellum history.

The whole reason for the Constitution was to limit the Federal governments' involvement in our day-to-day lives. The Bill of Rights were written to guarantee certain rights, ultimately that would prevent the Federal government from becoming tyranical.

IMO - The 2nd Amendment should not be touched or interpreted, nor should laws be enacted that surpress or trample it's intended purpose.......to rebel against the Government should it become oppressive and tyranical.

For the record....I am not advocating rebellion....us good ole Southerners learned the first time round. So you know: it's 1-0 at half on that one.

[JPH]

Peregrino and spectre,

I agree with everything you said 100%, you could also say I have lost hope in anyone with power in this country taking us back to our roots so to speak when it comes to our RIGHTS!!!

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Your use of the driver's license to illustrate your point is "interesting". Driving is not a right - it's a priviledge and subject to revocation for just about any reason the government or its agents choose.

I knew this when I wrote what is said, and your again 100% right that driving is a privilege and the 2nd amendment is the RIGHT to bear arms.

My goal with such a bill as the one I described above would be to get us as close to our roots as I could in this modern world.

Maybe a slightly better question is how do we sell this in today’s political environment?

My thought was, although it has many weaknesses, a few of which were just pointed out, is how can we package a licensing system so that we can look at all the anti-gun-lost-libs… and say “see look I have the license you approved, I have a background check, I have had a safety class…Now shut-up, fall in, or get out of my way” yet make that license easy to get for ALL law abiding and mentally stable citizens AND make is very very hard for the government to take away…

Again, in case I have not made myself clear, I personally think the U.S. Constitution said it all, and I am NOT for big government getting in to every corner of my life. But I have lost hope that we, as a nation, will ever drift back to that document the trend to “get away from that old document that just can’t keep up with the times anymore,” as I once heard a professor say to a group of very young very impressionable college freshmen, is just so strong… it is really very sad.

So… what could we do, as Americans, as citizens not subjects…yet…

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

Find a staunch pro 2nd Amendment candidate, and I'll show you a sure fire loser in 2008. George Bush won by 4,000,000 votes in the popular vote. Is it any coincidence that the NRA has roughly 4,000,000 members ? Perhaps, but my guess is most of the NRA types fall into the "Jim Zumbo" camp and HR1022 is not a threat to them, at least as they see it. After all, Zumbo doesn't own an AR15, AK, SKS, etc. Only till this last two weeks is he suddendly going to accept Ted Nugents request to join him on a hunting trip with an "Assault Rifle" Go for it Jim, you career is over anyway.

JPH

[longrange1947]

JPH wrote

BUT… I work in EMS and that in addition to being educated and living in the world we do today I have been exposed to many of the world’s crazes… I can understand and see a need for some gun control,

I have been exposed to even more of the worlds crazies and dictators and the common denominator is the desire and need for gun control so they can work unimpeded.

And exactly what gun control law has ever slowed down crime? It has been shown over and over that only the law abiding follow those laws, and many of the law abiding do not. Look at the number of illegally owned pistols in NYC that are owned by law abiding citizens only wanting to protect themselves and their homes.

No law outlawing or restricting guns will work any better than the laws outlawing drugs. The only thing a law does is show an anti gunner that, that one didn't work so the next must be stricter and more draconian. Do not fall into that trap. It is hte proverbial "nose of the camel" that they love to wedge in for the next incremental "common sense law".

A quick example, you can not own a full auto weapon without a "special license", but any gang banger can have one to use against you. The old adage, whay own an assualt rifle because....... is as valid as why own a car that can go faster than the speed limit. And those dam things, along with doctors, kill more than any gun, let alone an assualt rifle.

Off the soap box.

[Razor]

How about we add licensing restrictions to the 1st Ammendment, too? To use your paradigm:

- Class A: At age 16, after 10 years of classes on the English language, and at least one mandatory oration class, you are allowed to talk to your friends in groups no larger than 5, and cannot discuss politics (as you're no old enough to vote anyhow) or anything that would be considered Rated R in a movie (again, you're not yet 18).

- Class B: At age 18, with completion of an additional debate class and a federal background check you can now speak in groups of up to 8 and discuss politics (local only; no federal issues may be introduced to the discussion), the ramifications vs. pleasure of tobacco use, your experiences in filling out your Selective Service card, and driving/automotive topics (experience discussions limited to those conducted at or under the legal speed limit)

- Class C: At age 21, with proof of at least one semester of study in philosophy and/or logic, you may address groups of up to 15 people (any number over that could potentially create a large scale mob, which is dangerous to the general population) on topics that include the federal government (topics restricted to issues that directly affect you or the local area), the use of alcohol, and regional concerns. At no time may topics that may be considered offensive or disrupting to anyone in the group, or to anyone that may potentially overhear the group's discussion, be verbalized for fear of collateral damage. If discussions become heated, all parties must immediately disperse for a 3-day "cooling off" period, and all group members must attend a one day anger management counseling session to ensure future discussions do not escalate into violence.

Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?

[JPH]

Some very good points being made here and I can’t argue with any of them, nor do I want to.

So how can we get back to the point where the 2nd amendment, and the whole constitution for that matter, really means something?

Originally Posted by Razor

Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?

Sadly true, so what do we do?

The further this dialogue goes the more I think something really could be done, I feel we have a very well educated group here, and as stated above:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

EDIT: Do we need a 28th amendment? If so, what would it say, if not, then why??? AND how do we restore meaning to the second amendment AND prevent future infringements?

JPH

[x SF med]

Originally Posted by Razor

...Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?

Sheeple want to baaaa, sheeple do not want to face the wolf. That is why there are sheepdogs. Sheeple do not realize they are voting the wolf into office, because he can baaaa like the sheeple. Sheeple do not realize the wolves they elect to protect them will muzzle and cage the sheepdogs until it is too late.

[JPH]

More on my 28th amendment statement…
I would think any such amendment would recognize the governments infringement of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. It would then right those wrongs, and once more state that no law federal or local can be made to withhold these rights from anyone.

Again just my opinion at this time, I am open to any and all ideas

JPH

[spectre919]

Originally Posted by JPH

Again just my opinion at this time, I am open to any and all ideas

JPH

IMO - We cannot continue to enact laws that forces acknowledgement of another law. There shouldn't have to be a law to essentially tell the Fed's not to violate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is what it is....leave it alone and respect it.

Laws only serve people who obey them.....and those who get caught. Better and stronger enforcement of the current laws would serve everyone better.

[JPH]

I don’t want to be the only one posting and replying to this thread. However I don’t what to see this thread die either. This issue, our second amendment rights, is a deciding issue for my vote and it appears to be the same for many of the members of this board.

Even if it is not a deciding issue, it seems to be high on everyone’s list.

I just read the Gigliani 2008 thread, and I see a lot of people expressing the same thoughts and views as I have, only more elegantly written.

As I have alluded to this before but I will say it once more, I have lost hope that either party, or anyone currently running for POTUS will protect our rights.

So the question still stands… “How do we protect our rights, and make them THE ISSUE in ’08 and beyond?

I have thrown out a few under educated opinions, those of which have been shot full of holes, and rightfully so… (That comment is an admission “bad ideas” and not meant to be disrespectful of those participating in this debate/discussion. )

Looking at my generation, it is my belief that those who feel our constitutional rights are important, is a dieing breed. My generation wants things handed to them, and could care less about things they think don’t concern them!!!

Before those who are willing to stand up for our rights are dead… what can we do, do we still have the numbers to do it, to re-instate (sp?) our rights and protect them for the next 100 + years?

If so how?

JPH

[The Reaper]

Good article out today.

Sportsmen read and heed.

They want your guns too.

Much of this will probably get bargained away and after some version abridging more of our rights is passed, both sides will claim victory.

TR

The Patriot Post

Patriot Vol. 07 No. 09 Digest | 02 March 2007

THE FOUNDATION
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...” —Justice Joseph Story

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

A Valentine’s Day Massacre (of the Constitution)

In some ways I’m surprised it took them this long. On Valentine’s Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid’s arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy’s murky definition of “assault weapons” notwithstanding, the legislation’s intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.

All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.

Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called “assault weapons” —in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles—were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.

In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:

All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles—including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip”; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.

In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.

Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress—since he knew it wouldn’t. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=270) that the Bush administration’s 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly—and now that folly may be coming home to roost.

Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from “playing to the crowd.” It is the Constitution, after all—and not men—that defines the rule of law.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment (http://PatriotPost.US/histdocs/const..._of_rights.asp) prohibition against government interference in the “right to keep and bear arms” is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46 (http://PatriotPost.US/fedpapers/fed_46.html), “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.” This is no less true today than it was in 1787.

When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Feinstein’s own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, “Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based,” and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns “play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime.”

Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the “gun problem (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=300).” Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions—and at their own peril. Criminals don’t care whether the weapon they’re using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they’d much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.

In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.

Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” warned George Mason. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” implored Patrick Henry. “Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

[Tubbs]

While we're on the topic, a very good book to read on Gun Control is From my cold dead fingers: Why America Needs Guns by former sheriff Richard Mack.
I used this book to help establish and support the thesis for my term paper in social psychology disputing the so called "weapons effect" which is the basis for the modern liberal anti-gun platform.
This book is essentialy a comprehensive colledtion of data and statistics that self-evidently refute the argument for gun control. Regardless of which side of the issue you are on it will help in making an informed descision on gun control.

[OkieSoldier]

Originally Posted by Defender968

...What we don't need are more laws, what congress needs to do is worry about enforcing the laws we already have...

FYI, it's the legislative (congress) branch's job to write law and the executive branch's job to enforce those laws. While I understand your point, and fully agree that we don't need more laws, it is not the job of congress to do so. For those interested, there is a very interesting show on Showtime (R) called "Penn & Teller's Bull$#!t!" I believe in season 3 have an episode about the Brady bill and gun control. It addresses and supports many of the opinions contained in this thread. Their website is located at http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do

[CATAtonic426]

Slight necropost, sorry, but I found this if y'all haven't seen it yet.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348