Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)> wrote in
message news:Xns97A7874993636hopewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in

Sorry, but you've already told us that they can chose to ban
any weapons which aren't carried by the police or issued by
the state to the militia. So they would be free to ban all
sorts of weapons.

Please stop misquoting me and making shit up to suit your need
to find fault with my model.

This is actually what I said: "e. A state may limit the
possession of various types of firearms and ammunition within
that state so long as the limitation does not exceed
those placed on regular militia forces within the state."

Which means that they could regulate or ban any weapon not
normally allowed in the militia. If the militia were only
issued M16s, then anything else could be banned and in some
states would be. As Scout said.....

Yep, he seems to keep changing his claims first it's protected,
then it's allowed, then it can be prohibited, then it can't be
prohibited, then it's
only allowed, then it's protected......round and round and
round......his model is way to inconsistent for my tastes and
depends way to much on what
the government "allows" for you to have.

What you have now is what the government allows you to have.

And what we would have under your model would be the same, except
that the government would be able to legitimately withhold such arms.

Thanks, but I prefer accepting that we have a government that needs
to be restrained to what is legitimate rather than legitimizing their
extra Constitutional infringements.

I'm amazed at how the only suitable policies are the ones your
imagination has created-- based on a system your imagination has

So the Consitution is just a matter of imagination.

Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, claiming the
Constitution doesn't apply.

And it's not my fault you attribute meaning to sentences where that
meaning isn't there and wouldn't be assumed to be there by most
reasonable readers-- and where you don't bother to ask for
clarification where there might be some misstatement.

And yet another common tactic claiming that their convulted reading
of the 2nd is somehow the proper and only method and that it is
commonly accepted as the truth.

Sorry, but a 14 year old having taken basic English grammer can
diagram the 2nd and tell you to whom the right exists and what shall
be done in protection of that right. Further they can also explain to
you that giving a reason for something is NOT a limitation of the
nature of what is being explained.

But like I said, I've gotten something out of your comments-- so
you're not totally useless.

And so have I. You are a gun grabber in sheep's clothing attempting
to appear as an innocent supporter of guns, but the reality is that
you wish to turn our right into a government granted and approved
privilege subject to whatever constraints the government chooses to
place upon us.

You are deluded if you think you are not now subject to the
constraints the government chooses to place on you. Ruby Ridge? Waco?
You are even more deluded if you think the future is going to bring
you freedom from such constraints. The majority of Americans are
supportinve of militations on the right to keep and bear arms--
especially when they read the inflated rhetoric of nutz like you.

The majority of Americans have absolutely no idea how many regulations
that there are on guns already. However, when the rubber meets the road,
more and more states are going to "shall issue" CCW and defeating gun
control legislation when it comes to an actual vote rather than a poll.

And your inaccurate restatements of my model should embarass you.

If you put your words on paper and people read them differently than you
do, perhaps, changing some of the words or rephrasing some things will
make it clearer in both of your minds. If you think you are developing a
perfect model right out of the box, you must think you are Hillary on
single payer healthcare.

You are entirely correct. Future drafts will try to eliminate the
misunderstandings that have crept up over language and what that
language really means.

Recognizing and protecting a right to self-defense using a firearm
throughout the 50 states and territories is not "gun-grabbing" in any
sense of the phrase. It is an expansion of the protections we now

What state currently does not allow self defense with a firearm? Take
all the screens you need but please be sure to post the appropriate

Before you run off with this one, let me clarify that statement. The
state of Illinois does not recognize my right to _carry a concealed
handgun for self-defense_ or any other firearm for that matter.
Several other states have developed very discretionary practices and
some prohibitive controls (waiting periods, for example). The model
eliminates those.

Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

People discuss self defense as if you have as much time to do it in as
they have to discuss it. In reality, you have a flash to identify the
threat and react. Whether or not you actually pull the trigger is
something that you have a microsecond to decide and a lifetime
to live with.