Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

[Wallet]

Quote from piezoe:

You seem to understand reality perfectly well; yet refuse to acknowledge it. It's an enigma.

There has never been any question, by anyone, that the framers intended something very different from what we have today . They did not envision an elected upper legislative body. The did not include slaves or women as men created equal. They did not envision anyone other they property holders, nor certainly not women, as having a say in government, and on and on. So this very often-repeated-on-ET nonsense of the framers this and the framers that quite obviously has very little relevance to the modern multicultural, multiracial, very large, capitalist nation known today as the Untied States of America.

The fledgling nation known to the framers was so different from the United States today that it might as well have been on another planet.

This nation was founded on the constitution, it defines the government and not the other way around. The framers knew it wasn't a perfect document, hence the amendment process. You listed several changes, which came through that process as our culture evolved. The document is made for and amended by the people, and not by one branch of government working outside the normal checks and balances. Anything other is unconstitutional and only happens when we allow it.

 

[piezoe]

Agreed. We have many areas of agreement and can have a useful and productive discussion. I sense that we will both agree that we have allowed too many infringements on what should be our constitutionally protected rights. What productive actions can we take I guess is the important question.

Going back now to the 2nd amendment -- on the minds of many at the moment. I am chiefly concerned that we may take unproductive measures that create new laws, more restrictions, red tape and hassle for gun owners that don't produce any significant gains with regard to public safety. I don't want to give up any freedom we now have unless we get something worth even more in exchange.

There is a danger that we will do things that are politically popular but decrease our freedom without a commensurate gain in public safety. I am willing to give up some personal freedom for a real gain in safety and significant reduction in gun violence. I am uncertain what that would be, but i'm thinking that the most effective measure we could take would be an outright, total and absolute ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Even then it would take a number of years before we might see significant results. But were we to institute such a ban now, in twenty years or so I think we would see a virtual end to the kind of carnage we have experienced in recent years. It wouldn't take long to recover all of the semi-automatic weapons that are out there in the hands of law abiding citizens, but it would take years to recover nearly all of the semi-automatics that are in the hands of criminals. Few want to broach this topic, but if we did that, I don't think we would need gun registration, nor any other measure, nor even background checks -- though I am not strongly opposed to the latter.

I'm thinking a ban on semiautomatics, by itself, would bring a gain in public safety that would outweigh the freedom lost. And there would be zero effect on the use of guns for sporting purposes. No one needs a semiautomatic for hunting or target practice. I would even go along with gun clubs owning semiautomatic weapons of all types so long as their ownership, transfer of ownership, use and security was tightly monitored. I don't think we would need any other measures other than possibly a brief waiting period for purchase of hand guns. Then one could still go to a Walmart or gun show and buy a wide range of rifles and pistols for sport without undue hassle.

It would be very hard to convince me that the opposite approach being proposed by some of arming everyone is practical, sensible, or acceptable to the majority, but I am willing to listen to the arguments on that side.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from piezoe:

Agreed. We have many areas of agreement and can have a useful and productive discussion. I sense that we will both agree that we have allowed too many infringements on what should be our constitutionally protected rights. What productive actions can we take I guess is the important question.

Going back now to the 2nd amendment -- on the minds of many at the moment. I am chiefly concerned that we may take unproductive measures that create new laws, more restrictions, red tape and hassle for gun owners that don't produce any significant gains with regard to public safety. I don't want to give up any freedom we now have unless we get something worth even more in exchange.

There is a danger that we will do things that are politically popular but decrease our freedom without a commensurate gain in public safety. I am willing to give up some personal freedom for a real gain in safety and significant reduction in gun violence. I am uncertain what that would be, but i'm thinking that the most effective measure we could take would be an outright, total and absolute ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Even then it would take a number of years before we might see significant results. But were we to institute such a ban now, in twenty years or so I think we would see a virtual end to the kind of carnage we have experienced in recent years. It wouldn't take long to recover all of the semi-automatic weapons that are out there in the hands of law abiding citizens, but it would take years to recover nearly all of the semi-automatics that are in the hands of criminals. Few want to broach this topic, but if we did that, I don't think we would need gun registration, nor any other measure, nor even background checks -- though I am not strongly opposed to the latter.

I'm thinking a ban on semiautomatics, by itself, would bring a gain in public safety that would outweigh the freedom lost. And there would be zero effect on the use of guns for sporting purposes. No one needs a semiautomatic for hunting or target practice. I would even go along with gun clubs owning semiautomatic weapons of all types so long as their ownership, transfer of ownership, use and security was tightly monitored. I don't think we would need any other measures other than possibly a brief waiting period for purchase of hand guns. Then one could still go to a Walmart or gun show and buy a wide range of rifles and pistols for sport without undue hassle.

It would be very hard to convince me that the opposite approach being proposed by some of arming everyone is practical, sensible, or acceptable to the majority, but I am willing to listen to the arguments on that side.

Please define semiautomatics, because I own semiautomatic shotguns, pistols as well as rifles, some of which are designed and used exclusivly for hunting and sport. It's not the weapon, it's the individual. You do know that the worst mass killings were done by explosives.

 

[piezoe]

You'll have to tell me if I'm correct here. Is not a semiautomatic any gun that you only have to squeeze the trigger to fire off another round.
In other words, you pull the trigger once for each round fired and don't have to do anything else between rounds?

Another question. Is it possible and practical to modify some or many semiautomatics so that they are no longer semiautomatic. That is you have to physically cock them between shots, manually move another round into the chamber, etc.?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from piezoe:

Before the lunatics pounce, I thought it would be a good idea to state that I am perfectly aware that in the 18th century the word arms was used primarily for hand held weapons and the word "ordinance" for things like explosives, cannon, etc. My point in the above facetious post is that the 18th century definition of arms is no longer practical or useful in the 21st century as it relates to the right to bear them, because now we have hand held weapons such as bazookas, missile launchers, grenade launchers, etc. Discussing the 2nd amendment must start with an agreement on what kinds of arms should the second amendment refer to in the twenty-first century.

The U.S. Constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is an example of this obsolescence. The only practical way to keep this obsolescent document alive and useful in the twenty-first century is to interpret it in light of twenty-first century realities. Let us hope we are not so obstinate as to put more importance on what people in the 18th century thought than on what people in the 21st century think. That was then, this is now.

+1 Well said. Especially the last two sentences.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from piezoe:

You'll have to tell me if I'm correct here. Is not a semiautomatic any gun that you only have to squeeze the trigger to fire off another round.
In other words, you pull the trigger once for each round fired and don't have to do anything else between rounds?

Another question. Is it possible and practical to modify some or many semiautomatics so that they are no longer semiautomatic. That is you have to physically cock them between shots, manually move another round into the chamber, etc.?

Yep, so by your definition some of my favorite hunting guns that I grew up with, my Remington model-1100 20 gauge and Sears model- 25 22lr would both be banned........the squirrels and quail in my area will be happy to hear the news.

 

[Clubber Lang]

Quote from piezoe:

The U.S. Constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is an example of this obsolescence. The only practical way to keep this obsolescent document alive and useful in the twenty-first century is to interpret it in light of twenty-first century realities.

The liberal morons will 'interpret' it to fit their agenda.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Clubber Lang:

The liberal morons will 'interpret' it to fit their agenda.

No, a progressive intelligent electorate will, to make it better. Remember, government BY the people, OF the the people?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Wallet:

Yep, so by your definition some of my favorite hunting guns that I grew up with, my Remington model-1100 20 gauge and Sears model- 25 22lr would both be banned........the squirrels and quail in my area will be happy to hear the news.

I have owned a Remington Model 33 pump 12 ga, a beautiful Winchester 22 ga pump with a beautiful walnut stock , hexagonal barrel and a peep sight. And as a teenager, my dad bought me a White Powder Wonder single shot shotgun. I was never a very good hunter, but my dad could pick two greenheads out of a flock of mallards and sometime three with the Remington.

You are obviously a hunter too. Do you believe semiautomatics are necessary, or just a lot of fun. I can fully understand the angst someone such as yourself must feel. Concerned that you might have to give up the semiautomatics. Obviously you wouldn't want to do that. Why should you pay the price for a rare occurrence of a crazy person who would misuse these weapons? Particularly if you are a collector and you just enjoy handling these guns and admiring the workmanship. I understand.

What about the question I asked about modification so they are no longer semiautomatic. Is that completely impractical?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

There has never been any question, by anyone, that the framers intended something very different from what we have today . They did not envision an elected upper legislative body. The did not include slaves or women as men created equal. They did not envision anyone other they property holders, nor certainly not women, as having a say in government...

And for good reason.