|
Post by ed on Mar 9, 2018 8:16:54 GMT -5
Good morning to all-
I have spent a lot of thought on the topic of gun rights and gun control, and I believe that I have come to a conclusion which should solve the question to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Mr. Lapierre and the NRA present their notion that the Framers of the Constitution believed that citizens have an unlimited right to keep and bear arms. They hold this position firmly. I believe that this is a solid position legally, but I believe the gun people have misapplied the concept to include a wide range of weapons that the Framers never had in mind. So, here is my proposal: Let's let folks keep their guns IF their guns conform to the weapons that the Framers knew and considered when they wrote the Second Amendment. Let's go back to the time of the writing of Constitution and stick to the intensions and knowledge of the folks who wrote the Constitution.
In short, most long guns- including rifles- at the time of the Framers were quite long- probably five to six feet long. They are impossible to conceal. They used black powder, and they had to be re-loaded by hand after each shot. A skilled marksman might be able to fire, reload and fire again in something less than two minutes. Absolutely no rapid-fire guns here. Citizens, according to the Framers, have a right to these guns.
So, according to the Framers and what they knew, private gun owners should be able to keep and bear long guns that use black powder and require single-shot reloading.
And what about handguns? The handguns that the Framers knew are large- most are the better part of two-feet long, and they also require reloading after each black powder shot. So, private citizens should be legally allowed to have black powder pistols that are single shot only. These are the handguns of the time of the writing of the Constitution, so they should be allowed for private citizens now.
It seems logical and beyond argument that allowing these kinds of firearms and prohibiting all others is absolutely in keeping with the position of the NRA and those who support gun owner's rights. These are exactly the kinds of guns the Framers had in mind. They didn't know or have the desire to protect AR-15 and Kalashnikoff military arms for private citizen use. They didn't have auto-fire handguns in mind. They didn't have high-volume magazines in mind. So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution.
I see no reason this modest proposal should not satisfy all parties involved.
Good day to all- Ed
|
|
|
Post by robusta on Mar 9, 2018 9:46:41 GMT -5
Don't troll much do ya Ed?
Ok I will go with you on one condition. Since the founding fathers understood the freedom of the press to be just as important and equal to the right to bear arms and self defense, I propose that the only constitutionally protected communication be that that the founders had available to them. That would be word of mouth, town criers, and single sheet fed press.
The press has incited more violence, sowed more discord, destroyed more institutions than Arms ever have. Ed,Please unplug your computer, your tv cancel your paper. By your logic if the founders couldn't envision it, it deserves no protection!
Can you see just how ridiculous your proposition sounds. Are you seriously a college educated professional? When you present such a sophomoric argument, you really callinto question your critical thinking skills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 10:54:22 GMT -5
Don't troll much do ya Ed? Ok I will go with you on one condition. Since the founding fathers understood the freedom of the press to be just as important and equal to the right to bear arms and self defense, I propose that the only constitutionally protected communication be that that the founders had available to them. That would be word of mouth, town criers, and single sheet fed press. The press has incited more violence, sowed more discord, destroyed more institutions than Arms ever have. Ed,Please unplug your computer, your tv cancel your paper. By your logic if the founders couldn't envision it, it deserves no protection! Can you see just how ridiculous your proposition sounds. Are you seriously a college educated professional? When you present such a sophomoric argument, you really callinto question your critical thinking skills. I absolutely agree with you. Ed's ridiculous, condescending, sanctimonious rant is just the kind of thing that turns me off about the gun grabbers. I almost want to go out and buy myself an AR-15 just for spite now.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Mar 9, 2018 11:13:28 GMT -5
Good morning to all- Gentlemen- I appreciate your reaction- just what it was supposed to be. Any time you read "A Modest Proposal" it must tell you that whatever follows is not meant to be taken seriously, that the idea presented is done only for the shock effect. It all goes back to Dr. Swift's "Modest Proposal" which advocated the eating of Irish infants to deal with the conceived overpopulation of Catholic Ireland by the English politicians. Do I seriously think this would ever happen? Of course not. But it is something to think about. And I truly do appreciate your evaluation of my intended effect- I absolutely did mean to be condescending and sanctimonious- makes me feel better about my writing skills and abilities But, if I could, I would still get rid of a whole lot of firearms- a whole lot. Good day to all- Ed.
|
|
|
Post by nkat on Mar 9, 2018 11:44:24 GMT -5
My dh argued with me that one needs to match the gun power of the government. I asked him where was his tanks, submarines, stealth bombers etc.?
nkat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 11:55:00 GMT -5
My dh argued with me that one needs to match the gun power of the government. I asked him where was his tanks, submarines, stealth bombers etc.? nkat Wolverines!
|
|
|
Post by nkat on Mar 9, 2018 12:11:03 GMT -5
Well TT I guess that guy gave a valiant effort ! Too bad the pilots in the plane could not hear Wolverines!
NKat
|
|
|
Post by oldmontana on Mar 9, 2018 17:28:35 GMT -5
ed posted..
In short, most long guns- including rifles- at the time of the Framers were quite long- probably five to six feet long. They are impossible to conceal. They used black powder, and they had to be re-loaded by hand after each shot. A skilled marksman might be able to fire, reload and fire again in something less than two minutes. Absolutely no rapid-fire guns here. Citizens, according to the Framers, have a right to these guns.
So, according to the Framers and what they knew, private gun owners should be able to keep and bear long guns that use black powder and require single-shot reloading.
And what about handguns? The handguns that the Framers knew are large- most are the better part of two-feet long, and they also require reloading after each black powder shot. So, private citizens should be legally allowed to have black powder pistols that are single shot only. These are the handguns of the time of the writing of the Constitution, so they should be allowed for private citizens now.
It seems logical and beyond argument that allowing these kinds of firearms and prohibiting all others is absolutely in keeping with the position of the NRA and those who support gun owner's rights. These are exactly the kinds of guns the Framers had in mind. They didn't know or have the desire to protect AR-15 and Kalashnikoff military arms for private citizen use. They didn't have auto-fire handguns in mind. They didn't have high-volume magazines in mind.
So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution.
I see no reason this modest proposal should not satisfy all parties involved.
----------------------------------------------------------
"A Modest Proposal"
No, it is not. Its unrealistic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 18:04:33 GMT -5
Well TT I guess that guy gave a valiant effort ! Too bad the pilots in the plane could not hear Wolverines! NKat I like movies. When something reminds me of a scene from a movie I look for it on youtube and if I find it I post it.
It's just my way of having fun.
|
|
|
Post by birdgal on Mar 9, 2018 18:49:23 GMT -5
Oldmontana, Excellent! Best post ever! Thank you for posting such a logic. "So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution."
|
|
|
Post by oldmontana on Mar 9, 2018 20:21:55 GMT -5
birdgal posted..
Oldmontana, Excellent! Best post ever! Thank you for posting such a logic.
oldmontana Avatar
2 hours ago oldmontana said:
"So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution."
=================================
Not what I posted....read the post.
|
|
|
Post by nkat on Mar 10, 2018 11:37:55 GMT -5
birdgal posted.. Oldmontana, Excellent! Best post ever! Thank you for posting such a logic. oldmontana Avatar 2 hours ago oldmontana said: "So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution." ================================= Not what I posted....read the post. Take the credit and run with it!
|
|
|
Post by oldmontana on Mar 10, 2018 12:56:48 GMT -5
nkat's post
"So these high-volume, rapid fire weapons should be banned for sale, prohibited to private citizens, and confiscated and destroyed as they come available to authorities in the due course of law enforcement because they are not protected by the Constitution."
=================================
Not what I posted....read the post. Take the credit and run with it!
------------------------------------------------------------
No thanks!
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Mar 10, 2018 13:15:30 GMT -5
Black powder arms are fun for recreational firing...not so much for combat or self defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 13:41:36 GMT -5
Black powder arms are fun for recreational firing...not so much for combat or self defense. They are not even considered firearms and can be purchased as easily as buying a hammer in most states.
But you can kill the Hell out of people with them as evidenced by the casualty statistics of the Civil War.
|
|