Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)




"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145102238.360444.90420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144895766.543979.174350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You couldn't find anything about machine guns because it doesn't exist
in the model-- except derivatively.

So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect such
an
aspect of our rights?

Since many states don't want to protect the ordinary person's right to
have machineguns, I suspect the final version of the model would have
to have some treatment of it-- assuming some states would not move to
protect the right. I'm all for the states making their own laws--
consistent with the spirit of the model.

IOW, it doesn't matter what our rights are, just as long as they agree
within the very narrow application of your model?

ROFL. Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

A state couldn't prohibit the
carry of a concealed handgun, for example, since regular law
enforcement officers in all states carry them and to do so would
infringe upon a person's right to effective self-defense.

When the same question is posed about machineguns I don't reach the
same conclusion. Law enforcement officers do not regularly carry
machineguns (but in state where they do, if any, that state would not
be able to prohibit regular citizens from doing so as well). If
carrying a concealed handgun is allowed, then does the prohibiting of
machinegun carry prevent you from effectively defending yourself?

Sorry, but gun rights is about a heck of a lot more than just self
defense
against a couple of violent criminals.

And yes, depending on the circumstances prohibiting machineguns could
prevent me from effectively defending myself.


I
don't think so.

Sorry, but your thoughts aren't really relevent. We want facts, not
conjecture.


My model leaves it up to the states.

IOW, there are no protections in your model.

But my model
would also allow for the prohibition of machinegun carry. (I suspect
that in most states it would not affect the possession.)


And you told us your model was no more restrictive than what we have now.
Seems like you lied to us.

I hope you have followed the discussion here.

Oh, I have been.

If the model allows the
states to make laws as they do now-- with the exception that they must
have certain protections-- concealed carry consistent with what
regular law enforcement officers carry and home ownership consistent
with what the regular state militia personnel are issued and with
special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then
clearly the model is less restrictive than what exists now.

Bullshit. Law enforcement typically carry handguns, and while I can carry
handguns concealed what it would prohibit would be the open carry of every
other type of firearm in existence. That is SIGNIFICANTLY more restrictive
than what I have now. Further the regular state militia are issued NO
weapons by the state, and hence NOTHING would be protected for home
ownership. Further should the state issue weapons, ONLY those weapons issued
would be so protected, everything else would be prohibited or require
special permit. That is SIGNIFICANTLY more restrictive than what I have now.
Since not only can I have anything the state militia may be issued but also
a whole bunch of things which they wouldn't be issued.

So don't try to bullshit me and lie by telling me your model is clearly no
more restive than what I have now, because it's just not true. Because it's
not true, that leads me to believe that either you don't know what is in
your model, are ignorant of the current state of the law, or are lying to me
about your model's impact on the exercise of my rights. Since it's your
model, I think it's safe to assume you know what's in it. So that leaves me
with the choice that you are either ignorant or a liar. In either case it
certainly doesn't gain my support for your model. I would have to give up a
whole bunch of stuff just to reduce the exercise of my rights down to what
your model would grudgingly permit. Thanks. I prefer the old way of "shall
not be infringed", and work to end such infringement that exists rather than
roll over and give up virtually all my right to arms except for one highly
restricted bone you would toss me as a 'prize'.



.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect such ... IOW, it doesn't matter what our rights are, just as long as they agree ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect such ... When the same question is posed about machineguns I don't reach the ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect ... When the same question is posed about machineguns I don't reach the ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect such ... IOW, it doesn't matter what our rights are, just as long as they agree ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect ... IOW, it doesn't matter what our rights are, just as long as they ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ...
    (talk.politics.guns)