Question on potential gun ban

Question on potential gun ban

Posted in the Huntington Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Solution

United States

#1 Jan 24, 2013
If a ban does come to happen, I think there may be a way around it. Why cant each state create a militia? We could have a special election to elect a leader of the militia for each state. So technically speaking the constitution grants our right to militia and the right to bear arms. The forefathers wanted militias to be well armed in case of an attack on the people. That would or should create a loophole for all members of a statewide militia immunity to own black rifles even in an ban. We could do background checks on all memebers yearly, have memebers complete pysch exams and such. Does anyone think this could or would work?
Zaphod

Chesapeake, OH

#2 Jan 24, 2013
Solution wrote:
If a ban does come to happen, I think there may be a way around it. Why cant each state create a militia? We could have a special election to elect a leader of the militia for each state. So technically speaking the constitution grants our right to militia and the right to bear arms. The forefathers wanted militias to be well armed in case of an attack on the people. That would or should create a loophole for all members of a statewide militia immunity to own black rifles even in an ban. We could do background checks on all memebers yearly, have memebers complete pysch exams and such. Does anyone think this could or would work?
The gun manufacturers would still have to stop selling the banned guns. Also if you already have the gun you'll be able to keep it. No one is going to go around confiscating any guns. You guys act like nothing like this had ever happened before. Did anyone go door to door in the '90s when the last ban passed?
wait1sec

Charleston, WV

#3 Jan 24, 2013
Solution wrote:
If a ban does come to happen, I think there may be a way around it. Why cant each state create a militia? We could have a special election to elect a leader of the militia for each state. So technically speaking the constitution grants our right to militia and the right to bear arms. The forefathers wanted militias to be well armed in case of an attack on the people. That would or should create a loophole for all members of a statewide militia immunity to own black rifles even in an ban. We could do background checks on all memebers yearly, have memebers complete pysch exams and such. Does anyone think this could or would work?
It's a very good idea however what's More powerful the state or federal government
Solution

United States

#4 Jan 24, 2013
Zaphod wrote:
<quoted text>
The gun manufacturers would still have to stop selling the banned guns. Also if you already have the gun you'll be able to keep it. No one is going to go around confiscating any guns. You guys act like nothing like this had ever happened before. Did anyone go door to door in the '90s when the last ban passed?
However, there could be loopholes for manufacturers and members of a militia to still be able to make transactions. I think with yearly background checks, psych exams, training, among other things would work. We could also make sure the members of the militia have proper means to safely store these weapons when not in use like safes in the individuals homes. I'm a avid gun owner and keep my guns locked up except my personal defense weapon when I'm home or out and about. This type of plan to me could have the potential to make everyone happy on both sides of the fence. We all know a ban will not stop anything, crime will not lower because of it and criminals will not stop having access to them. The last ban didn't solve anything nor did lower crime rates. Also a ban could hurt the economy even more, because manufacturers sell many types of these black rifles. A imposed ban could create layoffs for many workers.
Solution

United States

#5 Jan 24, 2013
wait1sec wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a very good idea however what's More powerful the state or federal government
Well of course the federal government has more power. However the federal government and constitution allows us to have militias. Our forefathers wanted us to be efficiently armed and trained to protect the security of a free state.
Pro Guns

Addison, NY

#6 Jan 25, 2013
This could work, it would be tricky finding the loop holes to purchase more of the guns that had been banned depending on how they write the law/ban/restriction.

I personally think banning any guns or gun features isn't the answer anyway. There is enough of restrictions and laws as it is when it comes to particular guns/features. Any new gun legislation needs to focus on making sure the guns are bought legally, used and stored responsibly, and enforcing the safeties already in place. For example, ALL gun owners should be required to have a safe and keep all weapons in that safe when they aren't home. And, those safes should be required to be a certain weight, bolted to the floor and wall, or feature certain safeties to prevent someone from coming in and just taking the entire safe or breaking into the safe, then if a gun is stolen from someone and it can be proven that person was not storing their weapons properly it could be a basis for confiscating their weapons and make it difficult for them to purchase anymore because IMO that is one good indicator they are not being a responsible gun owner. It would force gun owners to be more responsible and help keep illegal/stolen weapons off the street while also preventing children in the home from accessing the weapons without parental supervision. I own a lot of guns but I only keep one out for the purpose of home defense and that same gun goes with me when I leave the home and I carry it safely and securely with a concealed permit. I am pro guns and I don't want to lose my right to buy many of the guns or guns with the features they have proposed to ban but I am also open to ways to ensure those guns end up in the hands of responsible, mentally healthy gun owners and remain there through proper storage and use.
1 post removed
Zaphod

Proctorville, OH

#8 Jan 25, 2013
Silent majority wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try at intelligence...

It all depends on whether "grandfathering" is included in the legislation..

now stop trying to think, it doesnt suit you.
It's in the proposed legislation.
Solution

United States

#9 Jan 25, 2013
Pro Guns wrote:
This could work, it would be tricky finding the loop holes to purchase more of the guns that had been banned depending on how they write the law/ban/restriction.
I personally think banning any guns or gun features isn't the answer anyway. There is enough of restrictions and laws as it is when it comes to particular guns/features. Any new gun legislation needs to focus on making sure the guns are bought legally, used and stored responsibly, and enforcing the safeties already in place. For example, ALL gun owners should be required to have a safe and keep all weapons in that safe when they aren't home. And, those safes should be required to be a certain weight, bolted to the floor and wall, or feature certain safeties to prevent someone from coming in and just taking the entire safe or breaking into the safe, then if a gun is stolen from someone and it can be proven that person was not storing their weapons properly it could be a basis for confiscating their weapons and make it difficult for them to purchase anymore because IMO that is one good indicator they are not being a responsible gun owner. It would force gun owners to be more responsible and help keep illegal/stolen weapons off the street while also preventing children in the home from accessing the weapons without parental supervision. I own a lot of guns but I only keep one out for the purpose of home defense and that same gun goes with me when I leave the home and I carry it safely and securely with a concealed permit. I am pro guns and I don't want to lose my right to buy many of the guns or guns with the features they have proposed to ban but I am also open to ways to ensure those guns end up in the hands of responsible, mentally healthy gun owners and remain there through proper storage and use.
I agree whole heartedly. We as gun owners have to do everything we can to be responsible gun owners. There should be stiffer penalties for people selling or trading guns without proper license. Dealers should know if a person trying to buy a gun has taken meds for any kind of mental problem, even if it's something as simple as anxiety. Every time a tragedy happens people against guns want to throw blame on the 95% of people who are responsible and law abiding gun owners. We need to make sure our guns are safely kept up.

I think though with a militia we might be able to find loopholes to protect those of us who are responsible. Like I said yearly background checks, psych exams, and training could go a long ways. We could hold people liable whose guns are not safely stored. There's so many things that can be done to protect our rights as well as protect the rest of the public, without trying to implement any sort of bans.
Get Real

Richmond, KY

#10 Jan 25, 2013
They aren't taking our guns and they aren't banning anything. The only thing they are going to do is restrict our magazine capacities which, I'm not gonna wage war over. The house and senate plan to squash anything else and Obama doesn't know enough about America yet to realize that he can't do a damn thing on his own.
Pro Guns

Addison, NY

#11 Jan 25, 2013
Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree whole heartedly. We as gun owners have to do everything we can to be responsible gun owners. There should be stiffer penalties for people selling or trading guns without proper license. Dealers should know if a person trying to buy a gun has taken meds for any kind of mental problem, even if it's something as simple as anxiety. Every time a tragedy happens people against guns want to throw blame on the 95% of people who are responsible and law abiding gun owners. We need to make sure our guns are safely kept up.
I think though with a militia we might be able to find loopholes to protect those of us who are responsible. Like I said yearly background checks, psych exams, and training could go a long ways. We could hold people liable whose guns are not safely stored. There's so many things that can be done to protect our rights as well as protect the rest of the public, without trying to implement any sort of bans.
I don't know that I would say if someone has something simple like anxiety or depression they shouldn't own a gun, as long as it doesn't effect their ability to be a responsible gun owner and they don't have serious effects from those problems (like the young boy that had murder/suicide fantasies, they should NOT be able to purchase a gun no matter what his problems are labeled. But, someone that just experiences a little more stress in their life and minor effects can still be a responsible gun owner that poses no risk to society. Psych exams like you mentioned would be a good way to to make decisions on who is capable of dealing with their anxiety/depression with or without medication and if they need medication if that medication would pose a risk for causing that person to use the gun irresponsibly. For that matter, I would be ok with a reasonable psych exam being administered for all gun purchases. I am actually more worries about someone who has mental problems and never been to the doctor or taken meds than someone who has those problems and does not seek help. IMO, they pose more of a risk than someone with minor problems that is having those problems addressed and monitored.) But, we agree 100% that there are many things that could be done to make society safer and gun owners more responsible without restricting any features, ammo, magazines, or specific gun types.

If were looking at this rationally and fairly across the board, and the point of implementing new laws is to save lives then we should be much more concerned with cars, alcohol, and cigarettes than we should with guns. There are many more deaths contributed to those than there are guns each year, and many of them are completely innocent lives at the hand of someone else using those items irresponsibly,just as the gun deaths are caused by irresponsibility and not the gun itself.
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#12 Jan 25, 2013
The only reason that the second amendment was given to the people in the bill of rights. Was to make sure of one thing. That was to protect us we the people from our own government...
" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!!!!"
It sure looks like it's time to make our four-fathers proud and to make them stop rolling in their graves as they are now on how our gov has become...

Now ok hunting was only a plus to come with it.
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#13 Jan 25, 2013
When the government fears the people, Then there is Freedom and Liberty.. When the people fears it,s own government, Then there is Tyranny. Words by Thomas Jefferson.
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#14 Jan 25, 2013
The purpose of the constitution is to protect us from our government.

Read it.
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#15 Jan 25, 2013
Annoy a politician.: DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION..:
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#16 Jan 25, 2013
I have this crazy idea, The Constitution acually means some thing..
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#17 Jan 25, 2013
What America needs is more unemployed politicians..
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#18 Jan 25, 2013
There's no left or right. There is only Freedom of Control. Which one do you want to be part of???!!!
Zaphod

Chesapeake, OH

#19 Jan 25, 2013
American-Heretic wrote:
There's no left or right. There is only Freedom of Control. Which one do you want to be part of???!!!
Any more useless talking points you want to parrot ?

Level 3

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#20 Jan 25, 2013
By Cass R. Sunstein, Bloomberg News

The rise of the Second Amendment as a serious obstacle to gun control legislation is astonishingly recent.

Here's a quick way to see how rapidly things have changed. Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'— would be maintained for the defense of the state."

Burger said the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word 'fraud'— on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Burger wasn't in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word "fraud," Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous. Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns. But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn't interfere with citizen militias at the state level.

Until remarkably recently, almost all federal judges have agreed. It is striking that before its 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court had never held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns.

The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" the militia. Without evidence that the possession of a sawed-off shotgun was related to preservation of a well-regulated militia, the court refused to say that the Second Amendment protected the right to have such a weapon.

For decades, federal courts overwhelmingly rejected the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It wasn't until the 21st century that lower federal courts, filled with appointees of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, started to adopt the individual rights position. And, of course, the Supreme Court itself adopted that view in 2008, by a 5-4 vote.
More important still, the Supreme Court has proceeded cautiously, and it has pointedly refused to shut the door to all gun regulation. On the contrary, the court said, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

To this the court added that the sorts of weapons it was protecting were those "in common use at the time" that the Second Amendment was ratified. We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court's rulings.

Reasonable people can debate about what policies would actually work. That is a debate worth having. It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.
American-Heretic

Huntington, WV

#21 Jan 25, 2013
Independence is not Isolationism...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
That a boy Trump 4 min Golden standard 7
Brad Fuller 8 min Obviously jealous 9
Disappearing Westmoreland Threads 18 min Anon Westmoreland 13
Liberals Claiming to be Against Trump's "Fascis... 34 min Silent Majority 17
Racist Democrat Quotes (Dec '13) 37 min Silent Majority 227
How did Trump beat everyone else?? 1 hr Silent Majority 55
Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down, Lee Greenwood play in... 1 hr Silent Majority 50

Huntington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages