An Open Invitation to Pro-Gun Controlling Folks

The rights and liberties of many Americans are infringed. Our 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the citizens to both keep and bear arms. This is greatly infringed by numerous states.

Many other Constitutionally protected rights are infringed as well. But let’s keep the focus on the right of Americans to protect and defend themselves from criminals, foreign threats, and even their own government.

What areas do you, those advocating for more gun control, believe we can restore rights now loss in this area.

– Should silencers be heavily regulated? Their main reason for regulation was the fear of animal poaching. Outside of Hollywood they are seldom used in assasinations and assaults.

Now as our society becomes more and more urban, with less and less free open natural space. We’ve found shooting sports and hobbies clashing with local civilization. The number one aspect of this clash is the noise. Sound suppressors would greatly reduce this issue and facilitate a more pleasant relationship. In fact, they are even required by some European nations.

Would you be open to amending the law, removing these items from the NFA regulated list. And allowing shooters and urban development to get along better?

– Let’s go on a small tangent. We’ll leave guns behind while remaining on the 2nd Amendment issue. While I am familiar with the common claims of rifles with 30 round magazines. And I am sure you’d prefer us to have only bolt-action rifles, or better yet, only flint-lock rifles. So let’s say we agreed to relegate ourselves back to 200+ yr old technology. And Americans would only be allowed to own flint-locks, the technology of the day when the Constitution was written. Would most of you gun control advocates accept such a notion?

If so, might I ask, do you oppose an individual’s right to keep and bear arms when that arm is in fact a sword? An arm that was commonplace technology during the American Revolution. In fact, it’s been commonplace for thousands of years. Only in the recent age has it ceased to be commonplace.

So what have you? Are you okay with allowing U.S. citizens to walk around with swords. Mind you, no brandishing. Just the right to carry a sword (openly of course, as it’s pretty darn hard to conceal a sword)?

– Lastly, are there any other rights regarding the 2nd Amendment that you are willing to see be restored to the American people?

Please, chime in and let me know….I will endeavor to keep the dialog (at least my own) civil. And encourage all readers to do the same.

So where can we agree to having the People’s rights restored?

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://nugun.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/an-open-invitation-to-pro-gun-control-folks/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Personally, I think that the laws should be in fact hardened, I mean it can be done without actually violating the right to bear arms which does just state a persons right to have a weapon. I mean when the constitution was written it didn’t really foresee the rise of handguns where someone can have 30+ rounds, and I mean the right to bear arms doesn’t really specify, so I mean I could have a ballistic missile outback if I wanted (in theory, though obviously the legality would be an issue there).

    And actually I think maybe, a sword is safer than a gun, you can’t use a sword to mow down 20 people in 10 seconds, and tbf concealment is an issue.

    Now I’m not an expert of the gun laws in the US (being a 16 year-old Brit) But I can’t see why people’s rights would be infringed if certain, probably unnecessary things (like the extended magazine I mentioned earlier), were more heavily regulated

  2. The Founding father’s may not have forseen firearm with 30 round magazines. But they expected the American people to be equipped with equivalent small arms as to that which the government possessed.

    If the United States standing army bears such arms, it was expected that the civilian populace be able to meet and handle such an armed force.

    As such there is an alternative that could be implemented. We make the U.S. modern battle rifle a 5 round bolt-action rifle. This would meet the founding father’s intent.

    As for the ballistic missile, no the Constitution does not protect one’s right to such. It protected what would be consider personal arms. It did not protect the right of an individual to possess artillery – which an ICBM would clearly fall under.

    Artillery at the time was usually possessed on a communal level. (ie: towns, states, etc).

    Swords can kill quite effectively in a close proximity. In Japan a man wielding only a car and a knife killed several people and stabbed over 12 individuals.

    Crazy people will find a way, where there is a will.

  3. Oh indeed, the mentally unhinged always will do what they can. Maybe stricter controls on the people who pose more of a threat, ie people with mental health issues, but this obviously brings up the case for personal freedoms. And I suppose its questionable if the civilian populace meeting the firepower of the standing army is still relevant today. And forgive my ignorance, what are laws like on the carrying of guns in public? concealed or not. If that is legal, maybe that should be curbed upon.
    But also is the point, of whether the 2nd amendment right is even necessary, I mean the US constitution is very very good, and incredibly progressive for its time, yet it was still written by men, and its therefore hardly divine (I am under the assumption of a pious man, since the atheism rates in the US are so low) in its context. For example in the UK where gun (and most weaponry) laws are incredibly strict there is a much lower instance of the crazies killing and rampaging, though it does still happen from time to time.

  4. “And I suppose its questionable if the civilian populace meeting the firepower of the standing army is still relevant today”

    Why do you say that?

    We have several documented cases of severe abuse by the American government against U.S. citizens. Not saying such requires the need for Americans to rise up – but it does affirm the potential of any government to harm it’s own citizens.

    A great example is the 1940’s under FDR. Who committed one of the most serious breaches of civility on the part of the U.S. government since the handling of the native americans and tolerance of slavery.

    Around a 100,000 Japanese Americans were interned in prison camps. Mind you, by the 1940’s many exclaimed similar expressions as you did. R

    “what are laws like on the carrying of guns in public? concealed or not. If that is legal, maybe that should be curbed upon.”

    It varies from state to state. Not sure why you would suggest curbing it. As individuals with permits/licenses to carry have a better track record than our own law enforcement does. And statistically would be one of the lowest demographics for the commission of crimes.

    So essentially, you’re advocating the removal of people’s rights, who are pretty much in no way part of the problem.

    “whether the 2nd amendment right is even necessary, I mean the US constitution is very very good, and incredibly progressive for its time, yet it was still written by men, and its therefore hardly divine”

    Agreed…it is not divine, nor perfect, but pretty darn good. Sadly, it’s fairly much ignored these days except in the highest of circles.

    But most of the rights they put forth for protection are essential rights of liberty and civility. So I am not sure that we’d want to do away with any of the rights protections. Add more protections, sure…provide more stipulations for liberty – definitely. But take them away, why would we want to do that?

    “(I am under the assumption of a pious man, since the atheism rates in the US are so low)”

    Actually, atheism, agnosticism, are very high in America. I’d probably say less than 25% of America is devout in any real shape or form.

    “For example in the UK where gun (and most weaponry) laws are incredibly strict there is a much lower instance of the crazies killing and rampaging, though it does still happen from time to time.”

    That may be true, but even with such stringent controls violence hasn’t been eliminated in the U.K. And although I might be mistaken, my understanding is that the overall level of violent crime in the U.K. is actually pretty high, higher than the U.S. in regards to assaults and robberies.

    I wonder if the lack of firearms in the hands of citizens encourages other predatory crimes such as rape, robbery, etc.

    Interesting BBC article,
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
    which states you are 6 times more likely to be mugged in London than in NYC. Most burglaries in America occur while the home is vacant, where as over half in England occur while the occupents are home – much more dangerous.

  5. Kudos for your attempt at a dialog but I’m far less optimistic. Rights restored? RARELY. The “assault Rifle” ban overturned in 04 was a rare feat.

    This is why we need to fight the anti’s tooth nail and foot when they attempt to infringe. The McCarthy “bill” would be comical if it wasn’t reality. A 30 rnd clip vs a 10 rnd clip? Really? So what they are saying is they are OKAY with 10 dead… but damn it that 11th and over is too much.

    Instead of focusing on the fool they continue to fault the tool. I don’t see them limiting gas tanks on cars because that way drunks can’t drive too far and kill people… I don’t see them banning cigars or limiting the number of smokes you can have…I see them raising prices and profiting from the sale…

    Facts are miserable things when discussing gun control. The Anti’s would have you believe a 10 rnd magazine would have saved people in Tuscon. It wouldn’t have. What would have saved people in Tuscon is someone in that crowd actually OBSERVING their rights to bear arms and shooting the assailant…But it was a democrat meeting so there were SHEEP in the slaughter house.

    • There is one thing I do have to question with this last comment
      “The Anti’s would have you believe a 10 rnd magazine would have saved people in Tuscon. It wouldn’t have. What would have saved people in Tuscon is someone in that crowd actually OBSERVING their rights to bear arms and shooting the assailant…But it was a democrat meeting so there were SHEEP in the slaughter house.”

      It would have, it wouldn’t have saved everybody, but it would have made it impossible for 19 people to have been shot, and I’m not sure on the laws on guns in arizona, compared to other places, but people should move away from that hero fantasy, of saving everyone. I mean enjoying your right to have guns is one thing, but carrying one around in public is another. I mean I’m not one in any position to question, I’m here to find out more rather than to impose, and it sounds like you’re blaming people not carrying a weapon, as the reason people died, and no blame can be put on the people, being as any attack like this is entirely unpredictable.

      And too answer another point, London is a really bad area to compare, because its one of those places where you’d be scared to walk through.
      The majority of london is in gross social deprivation, has high numbers of immigration.
      If you compared somewhere like I live (which isn’t affluent, but isn’t socially deprived) You have major reductions, to the scale of <80 violent crimes per 100,000.

      I do have weapons in my house also, in the form of a large broadsword and sabre in my display cabinet, I do like having them, but wouldn't have them for anything other than the enjoyment of building a collection of old english weaponry


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: