Thinking about options

[Rhino]

So this thread is for an outside-the-box discussion. Call me a butter, but I'm gonna throw some ideas out.

1. Natural rights, law, whatever, my 3 year old doesn't need an AR-15 and I don't want him handling mine. We may have different definitions of "child" but most of us should be able to agree that before whatever point of maturity that is, there are valid reasons for children having restrictions on what they touch. Any adult that hands a weapon to an untrained, uneducated kid without it being a controlled training situation is irresponsible, IMO.

2. There ARE some adults who genuinely shouldn't be touching guns either. A few autistic kids I know are definitely in that category.

3. I have HUGE, serious concerns about "Red Flag Laws" for adults, mind you, and I'm not encouraging that we should have them.

So... I've been trying to think about a reasonable scenario where we could try and get around that and do something constructive to offer a reasonable alternative that might appease the left, not surrender our rights, and actually strengthen the position of those who believe in individual liberty and freedom.

First off, yes, I should have the right to do a lot of things, but self-control and self-regulation IS necessary and appropriate for polite society. Wanna pick your nose, fine, but think of others. Wanna get drunk, that's your problem, but it becomes our problem when you injure or kill our friends. You used your liberty to injure someone else. (1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.)

So this is what I came up with while talking with a friend and I'm just tossing it out here:

First off, I do think while we have the option we should continue to advocate for the individual liberty to keep personal weapons. That's NOT up for discussion. That said, if OUR responsibility and self-control could be used in a way that we could work together to keep the small percentage of idiots from creating headaches for us, it would be a good thing.

How workeable would this be (tell me why this couldn't be a solution):

Anyone residing in urban areas, or within 25 (or some other fairly reasonable number) miles of an urban area would be asked to actually be a part of a non-partisan, formal milita unit. The units can be as active, or inactive as they want with regards to meet-ups, training, etc... but must not as a militia become a political deal (think churches and 501(C)3 stuff) except for lawful defence.

Instead of banning high-capacity mags, California style, all mags over 10 rounds are going to be stored at a local militia point with two keys needed and a checkout / buddy system in place to use them. All members of militia units may own high-cap magazines, but all high-cap magazines are stored at common, dispersed locations. If you have a desire to pull it out and use it, you can, but two members of the militia have to agree. In this idea, you can own the weapons, and keep them at your home. No problem. Want to go hog-hunting on your own? Take your 10 round mags. If you justifiably need more than that, let Dave and John know. The idea being that if someone's acting suspicious or unreasonable there's a line of non-LEO defence. We have GOT to start policing ourselves or force is going to be used.

Also, I know, I know. The right to keep (own, store) and bear (wear, or carry) arms shall not be infringed... but this would appease the fact that the term militia is used in the amendment, and personally, I'm having a hard time arguing that people need to be able to carry 100 rounds around in semi-auto mags just because. Just like I don't think my 3 year-old needs to carry around an AR, I'm not sure that our society in general is proving mature enough for trouble young adults to be carrying around lots of semi-auto rounds. I'd even be ok with saying you can carry as many bullets as you want if you are carrying a revolver, but only 10-20 rounds if you are carrying a semi-auto pistol or rifle unless you are a licensed individual...

I'm one person removed from a person that was killed in one of these deals recently and I'm personally at a point that specifying a certain number of rounds a person should be reasonably be carrying on their person would not IMO be infringement. We all know people are going to break some of these laws, but if we could find a way to prevent them, it would be valuable, especially if WE did the work instead of the legislatures and police confiscations.

We don't want to become California, with stupid restrictions, BUT this would be a voluntary, self-regulating private initiative, trying to maintain local, non-federal control. The idea would be to voluntarily agree that we, as gun owners would be free to own any and all weapons we currently have, or may purchase in the future.

Why am I advocating for something like this? Plain and simple, I believe that the time has come when opposing forces (the anti-personal weapons left) has the momentum to affect change by force of law, and of the military and police. I feel like it's rapidly becoming inevitable and the best way to delay, or avoid this is to self-regulate ourselves.

 

[robertc1024]

No, no and no. My freedom is mine. Not Dave and John's.

 

[Rhino]

No, no and no. My freedom is mine. Not Dave and John's.

Maybe, but maybe not for much longer if the left convinces law enforcement to start a war. At some point we all have to count the cost and make some decisions.

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finishit, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luke 14:28-32

 

[rmantoo]

So, my right to arm myself, in a manner consistent with 'however the hell I want to be armed,' isn't infringed by having to KEEP MY FREAKING MAGS SOMEWHERE BESIDES WHERE I AM???

NOpe. Uh-uh. Nein. Nyet. Non. Nee. Ne. Meiyou. That's "NO" in 7 of the languages I know.

Appeasement never works for the appeaser. It only works for the appeased...which will only incite them to want more appeasement. "SHall not be infringed" is a pretty simple clause.

 

[jrbfishn]

There are millions of ARs and even more millions of 30 round magazines out there. Not to mention the millions of semi-auto handguns and millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Out of all those millions, less than than a hundred are killed in mass shootings with either each year.

So tell me how, and what research you used, yor plan what have saved a significant number of those lives.

ARs account for very few of the less than 1000 long gun deaths each year. Most are shot by shotguns, bolt hunting rifles. And a lot of those are while hunting.
A lot of the AR deaths I have heard of are defensive in nature.
None of what you propose would alter anything except to effectively ban overwhelmingly LAW ABIDING owners from having possession of objects that are not in themselves any more dangerous than a 10 round magazine.

Not to mention that when it doesn't work, the next step is to lock up the guns. And you can't have them unless someone else agrees you need it.

And so on and so on...........

Until the worst crime you can commit, is wanting freedom.

I have a better plan.
No news coverage not needed for public safety.
Automatic death sentence. By firing squad. Of bad shots with small caliber guns and lots of ammo.
But that won't happen. Then you couldn't make criminals victims.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[rmantoo]

There are millions of ARs and even more millions of 30 round magazines out there. Not to mention the millions of semi-auto handguns and millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Out of all those millions, less than than a hundred are killed in mass shootings with either each year.

So tell me how, and what research you used, yor plan what have saved a significant number of those lives.

ARs account for very few of the less than 1000 long gun deaths each year. Most are shot by shotguns, bolt hunting rifles. And a lot of those are while hunting.
A lot of the AR deaths I have heard of are defensive in nature.
None of what you propose would alter anything except to effectively ban overwhelmingly LAW ABIDING owners from having possession of objects that are not in themselves any more dangerous than a 10 round magazine.

Not to mention that when it doesn't work, the next step is to lock up the guns. And you can't have them unless someone else agrees you need it.

And so on and so on...........

Until the worst crime you can commit, is wanting freedom.

I have a better plan.
No news coverage not needed for public safety.
Automatic death sentence. By firing squad. Of bad shots with small caliber guns and lots of ammo.
But that won't happen. Then you couldn't make criminals victims.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I just want to say that if an SM g892A is a phone, MUCH RESPECT!!! No way I could type that much on a freaking phone! ------AND: I agree with everything you just said, too!

 

[robertc1024]

I know that verse well. I'd summarize it by saying - finish what you start, and make sure you're ready. The position of peace comes from strength.

 

[Rhino]

So, my right to arm myself, in a manner consistent with 'however the hell I want to be armed,' isn't infringed by having to KEEP MY FREAKING MAGS SOMEWHERE BESIDES WHERE I AM???

NOpe. Uh-uh. Nein. Nyet. Non. Nee. Ne. Meiyou. That's "NO" in 7 of the languages I know.

Appeasement never works for the appeaser. It only works for the appeased...which will only incite them to want more appeasement. "SHall not be infringed" is a pretty simple clause.

Show me how not letting my 3 year old not have access to an UZI is really infringement. We need to maintain the capacity to stop genuine enemy forces but we need to stop the misuse of our weapons, too. I’m happy with a PF9 in my pocket. It’s got 6 round mags and I usually carry 3 of them. If there’s a real BG I have the choice to engage or find cover and engage if chased. If you feel like you need to carry more rounds, carry a revolver or demonstrate stability and get a license. I’m actually for constitutional carry and used to be heavily engaged in political activism for it, but the frequency and damage from these shooting events IS getting out of hand and if we keep our heads in the sand, we will pay for it more dearly.

 

[jrbfishn]

Maybe, but maybe not for much longer if the left convinces law enforcement to start a war. At some point we all have to count the cost and make some decisions.

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finishit, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luke 14:28-32

Many in LE in my area are prior military. There is a large miltary presence. There are some that would follow a confiscation law, most would not. Especially officers and NCOs.

My father was career military. I hVe lived around them for 62 years. This I can tell you.
No sane soldier that has seen war, WANTS war. Especially against his friends and family.
You really need to rethink this.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

Appeasement never works for the appeaser. It only works for the appeased...which will only incite them to want more appeasement. "SHall not be infringed" is a pretty simple clause.

This.
Appeasement is just giving into bullies. And just like bullies when you don't fight back, they will return worse and worse each time.

No thank you.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[rmantoo]

Show me how not letting my 3 year old not have access to an UZI is really infringement. We need to maintain the capacity to stop genuine enemy forces but we need to stop the misuse of our weapons, too. I’m happy with a PF9 in my pocket. It’s got 6 round mags and I usually carry 3 of them. If there’s a real BG I have the choice to engage or find cover and engage if chased. If you feel like you need to carry more rounds, carry a revolver or demonstrate stability and get a license. I’m actually for constitutional carry and used to be heavily engaged in political activism for it, but the frequency and damage from these shooting events IS getting out of hand and if we keep our heads in the sand, we will pay for it more dearly.

YOU not letting YOUR 3yo access an UZI is not MY, or anybody else's responsibility.

Our rights are not conditional upon the behavior of others.

My right to free speech is not predicated on other people not inciting violence or fomenting terrorism.

My right to arm myself is not predicated on other people not using firearms for illegal purposes.

Especially when it comes to rifles. You can say whatever you like, but the cold, hard, simple fact is that long guns are used in less than 4% of ALL gun deaths- including suicides. Banning ANY aspect thereof will have, at most, an almost statistically insignificant effect on overall numbers.

 

[brashears9567]

Hell no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robertc1024]

Show me how not letting my 3 year old not have access to an UZI is really infringement. We need to maintain the capacity to stop genuine enemy forces but we need to stop the misuse of our weapons, too. I’m happy with a PF9 in my pocket. It’s got 6 round mags and I usually carry 3 of them. If there’s a real BG I have the choice to engage or find cover and engage if chased. If you feel like you need to carry more rounds, carry a revolver or demonstrate stability and get a license. I’m actually for constitutional carry and used to be heavily engaged in political activism for it, but the frequency and damage from these shooting events IS getting out of hand and if we keep our heads in the sand, we will pay for it more dearly.

You're really reaching here. 3 year old and an UZI? If your three year old has access to that, you're an idiot. A lot of our heads are in the sand. We put up with the crap like mag limits.

 

[WAYnorthTX]

So this thread is for an outside-the-box discussion. Call me a butter, but I'm gonna throw some ideas out.
1. Natural rights, law, whatever, my 3 year old doesn't need an AR-15 and I don't want him handling mine. We may have different definitions of "child" but most of us should be able to agree that before whatever point of maturity that is, there are valid reasons for children having restrictions on what they touch. Any adult that hands a weapon to an untrained, uneducated kid without it being a controlled training situation is irresponsible, IMO.
2. There ARE some adults who genuinely shouldn't be touching guns either. A few autistic kids I know are definitely in that category.
3. I have HUGE, serious concerns about "Red Flag Laws" for adults, mind you, and I'm not encouraging that we should have them.
So... I've been trying to think about a reasonable scenario where we could try and get around that and do something constructive to offer a reasonable alternative that might appease the left, not surrender our rights, and actually strengthen the position of those who believe in individual liberty and freedom.
First off, yes, I should have the right to do a lot of things, but self-control and self-regulation IS necessary and appropriate for polite society. Wanna pick your nose, fine, but think of others. Wanna get drunk, that's your problem, but it becomes our problem when you injure or kill our friends. You used your liberty to injure someone else. (1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.)
So this is what I came up with while talking with a friend and I'm just tossing it out here:
First off, I do think while we have the option we should continue to advocate for the individual liberty to keep personal weapons. That's NOT up for discussion. That said, if OUR responsibility and self-control could be used in a way that we could work together to keep the small percentage of idiots from creating headaches for us, it would be a good thing.
How workeable would this be (tell me why this couldn't be a solution):
Anyone residing in urban areas, or within 25 (or some other fairly reasonable number) miles of an urban area would be asked to actually be a part of a non-partisan, formal milita unit. The units can be as active, or inactive as they want with regards to meet-ups, training, etc... but must not as a militia become a political deal (think churches and 501(C)3 stuff) except for lawful defence.
Instead of banning high-capacity mags, California style, all mags over 10 rounds are going to be stored at a local militia point with two keys needed and a checkout / buddy system in place to use them. All members of militia units may own high-cap magazines, but all high-cap magazines are stored at common, dispersed locations. If you have a desire to pull it out and use it, you can, but two members of the militia have to agree. In this idea, you can own the weapons, and keep them at your home. No problem. Want to go hog-hunting on your own? Take your 10 round mags. If you justifiably need more than that, let Dave and John know. The idea being that if someone's acting suspicious or unreasonable there's a line of non-LEO defence. We have GOT to start policing ourselves or force is going to be used.
Also, I know, I know. The right to keep (own, store) and bear (wear, or carry) arms shall not be infringed... but this would appease the fact that the term militia is used in the amendment, and personally, I'm having a hard time arguing that people need to be able to carry 100 rounds around in semi-auto mags just because. Just like I don't think my 3 year-old needs to carry around an AR, I'm not sure that our society in general is proving mature enough for trouble young adults to be carrying around lots of semi-auto rounds. I'd even be ok with saying you can carry as many bullets as you want if you are carrying a revolver, but only 10-20 rounds if you are carrying a semi-auto pistol or rifle unless you are a licensed individual...
I'm one person removed from a person that was killed in one of these deals recently and I'm personally at a point that specifying a certain number of rounds a person should be reasonably be carrying on their person would not IMO be infringement. We all know people are going to break some of these laws, but if we could find a way to prevent them, it would be valuable, especially if WE did the work instead of the legislatures and police confiscations.
We don't want to become California, with stupid restrictions, BUT this would be a voluntary, self-regulating private initiative, trying to maintain local, non-federal control. The idea would be to voluntarily agree that we, as gun owners would be free to own any and all weapons we currently have, or may purchase in the future.
Why am I advocating for something like this? Plain and simple, I believe that the time has come when opposing forces (the anti-personal weapons left) has the momentum to affect change by force of law, and of the military and police. I feel like it's rapidly becoming inevitable and the best way to delay, or avoid this is to self-regulate ourselves.

You are responsible for your 3 year old. Fine. I am not. You are not responsible for me. Or my guns, if I own any. I will be responsible for them. And any magazines that I own, thank you. Mind your 3 year old.

 

[Rhino]

You are responsible for your 3 year old. Fine. I am not. You are not responsible for me. Or my guns, if I own any. I will be responsible for them. And any magazines that I own, thank you. Mind your 3 year old.

What I’m trying to point out is that the line is arbitrary and a matter of degree. We need a unified line rather than multiple arbitrary points.

 

[robertc1024]

What I’m trying to point out is that the line is arbitrary and a matter of degree. We need a unified line rather than multiple arbitrary points.

What is arbitrary? Is shall not be infringed not clear enough? The existing laws are already an infringement.

 

[FireInTheWire]

Look... I appreciate your write up and I read the whole thing.

We the people can't back down. We the people are all law abiding citizens and have every right to own any weapon or amount of ammo or mag. This is about tyranny and protecting ourselves. We can not budge or give an inch to the corrupt people living on the hill.

It's already complete bullshit that I have to wait for a suppressor 8-12 months. The NFA never should have been passed and Americans should have fought that crap.

If you research what's taking place just south of us- you better be loaded to the tilt when the American economy takes it's 2nd hit.

Evil is among us. Protect yourself to the utmost.

 

[FireInTheWire]

What is arbitrary? Is shall not be infringed not clear enough? The existing laws are already an infringement.

^^^

 

[robertc1024]

Look... I appreciate your write up and I read the whole thing.

We the people can't back down. We the people are all law abiding citizens and have every right to own any weapon or amount of ammo or mag. This is about tyranny and protecting ourselves. We can not budge or give an inch to the corrupt people living on the hill.

It's already complete bullshit that I have to wait for a suppressor 8-12 months. The NFA never should have been passed and Americans should have fought that crap.

If you research what's taking place just south of us- you better be loaded to the tilt when the American economy takes it's 2nd hit.

Evil is among us. Protect yourself to the utmost.

Preach it brother.

 

[Rhino]

I guess my personal belief is that there are two sets of us in this camp. Those who will intend to fight confiscation and those like myself who for whatever reason probably won’t. Realistically, some of those who claim they will fight probably won’t, either. If that’s the case we should be seriously looking at a compromise on our terms that provides basically some form of a local self-policing non-political form of self-restraint as opposed to further tyranny.