Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)




"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145278964.577629.228740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145221609.603399.12880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97A7874993636hopewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145216503.872789.194620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.

Seems you can't respond.


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

So the Consitution is just a matter of imagination.

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

And again.

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.

And again.

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.

And again.


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?

Just because I may be subject to such constraints does NOT make those
restraints legitimate. Your "model" would much such restraints legitimate
and allow such restraints as a matter of course. Sure those restraints may
be no more than what I am now subjected to, though I have serious reason to
suspect they could be much more, but the key difference would be that one
set of restraints would be wrong and contrary to the "model" the other would
be fully supported by and compatable with the "model".

So once again I will stick with the current model, "shall not be infringed".
It may not be perfect in application, but at least we can fight that that
application isn't proper.

You are
even more deluded if you think the future is going to bring you freedom
from such constraints.

I see, so I should just give up my rights now without a fight, and then
later when my concealed carry is prohibited and my few remaining weapons are
prohibited, well, it's just what the future is going to bring. If this is
true, then why in hell would I accept a model that gives up more of my
freedoms? Why wouldn't I hang on to every scrap I have for as long as I can
hold on to it?

Sorry, by your very arguement above there is absolutely no reason to accept
your model and every reason to reject it so as to hold on to as much of our
freedom as we can rather than give it away.

Further I note that my freedom with guns is increasing and I see no reason
to suspect that trend will change. Sure, in the future it might, by why
would I work to remove my rights as your model would require?


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.

Another empty tactic of gun control, to suggest that people actually favor
banning guns. When the reality is utterly different. Most people feel that
people should be free to own guns.


And your inaccurate restatements of my model should embarass you.

Really? Care to point out in the language of your model were my statements
are contrary to what is set forth?


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.

No, but giving up access to a bunch of other firearms by needing special
licensing which may or may not be authorized, IS gun-grabbing.


It is an expansion of the protections we now have.
Duh.

Ok, then if it is an extension of the protections we have now....then why
should all those other arms now require special licenses by the state or be
allowed to be prohibited by the state? After all our CURRENT protection is
that our possession of arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Anything else is NOT an
extension of that protection. I think what you really mean is the nature of
the illegitimate violations of those protections that exist, but even then I
don't see how your model reduces overall those violations. It does help
protect one small segment but would allow everything else to be violated at
will.

So, sorry, if your model allows ANY infringement of our right to arms, then
it does NOT extend our protections it retracts them.



.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... those placed on regular militia forces within the state." ... Constitutional infringements. ... Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, ... After all our CURRENT protection is ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... the state to the militia. ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, ... What state currently does not allow self defense with a firearm? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... the state to the militia. ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, ... What state currently does not allow self defense with a firearm? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... any weapons which aren't carried by the police or issued by ... the state to the militia. ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... any weapons which aren't carried by the police or issued by ... the state to the militia. ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... Another common tactic of those opposed to guns, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)