Anti gun legislation

[xtatik]

Finally, something original and thought provoking.






Well, I liked it.

Well, yer wekkum'

 

[xtatik]

In addition, you're adding nothing to the debate.

Sure I did. In that post I conceded that change can happen within the context of the 2A. But, I also said that some things won't.

 

[xtatik]

How about a Black Belt in Gunnery?

If you've put in the time (years) and earned your Black Belt, you can carry whatever the hell you want. Concealed handgun, assault rifle - whatever floats your boat.



We could do it by standard martial arts belt ranks:


White - has to pass written/oral safety test to advance.

Orange - BB gun, must demonstrate practical expertise in safety and handling to advance.

Yellow - pellet gun, must demonstrate expertise in marksmanship to advance.

Green - single shot .22 rifle or pistol, single shot 410 shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in powder cartridge knowledge, handling and safety, as well as cleaning and maintenance of powder guns to advance.

Blue - revolver, .32 or less, bolt action or lever action .22 rifle, 20ga. over/under shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in mechanical actions as well as safely clearing jams to advance. Highest rank that can be approved by a single Black Belt.

Purple - revolver any size, any size bolt, lever or pump action rifle, any single, double or pump action shotgun. MILESTONE: Demonstrated expertise in all basics. Eligible to instruct in basics under supervision of Black Belt. Must log 250 hours as basics instructor and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Brown - semi-auto handguns rifles, shotguns, 10 round magazine max, must demonstrate expertise in semi-automatic repeating actions, and also weapon control, safety and accuracy in single, timed and rapid fire WHILE UNDER STRESS, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance. MILESTONE: If 21 years of age, an carry, but NOT concealed.

Red - semi-auto, no magazine limit, MILESTONE: CCW. Must log 250 hours as intermediate instructor under the supervision of a Black Belt, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Black - FULL AUTO rifle, pistol, shotgun, no magazine limit. MILESTONE: Eligible to be licensed as instructor. Must pass a peer review committee of higher rank Black Belts to advance.

2nd Black - sub-machine guns.
3rd Black - machine guns.
etc.


This scheme, A) does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment, B) insures adequate training, C) places the decision about who is responsible enough in the hands of others who are trusted at that level.

Perfect? Of course not. But a lot better. I mean seriously, how often do you see a news story about a Black Belt running wild? It takes dedication to reach that level, and if you are a nutcase, your Sensei, Sifu or Gunny is going to notice it while teaching you for a couple of years. This also avoids the slippery slope of creating a class of people who have been declared incompetent by some damned personality test.

So let's make Gunnery into a REAL martial art, get it recognized and sanctioned, and get the NRA to lobby the legislators to place the decision about who is qualified into the hands of the qualified.

This is an interesting addendum to the pre-qualification idea. Although, in your model, I'd like to see the MMPI or similar used between a Yellow and Green Belt. Heck, it might even serve as a "peace offering" to the religiously pro-gun crowd and get them on board. I still don't think they'll have a test for crazies (sij) like me that want a SAM missile:coffeedrink:. But, the prospect being able to be checked out or cleared for full-auto would get some people salivating. Unfortunately, if this were to happen, I think my State would be advocating secession from the Union.

 

[dwh]

Hey, I was properly trained.

As what? A mechanic? Or perhaps computer operator?

 

[Mr. Leary]

How about a Black Belt in Gunnery?

If you've put in the time (years) and earned your Black Belt, you can carry whatever the hell you want. Concealed handgun, assault rifle - whatever floats your boat.



We could do it by standard martial arts belt ranks:


White - has to pass written/oral safety test to advance.

Orange - BB gun, must demonstrate practical expertise in safety and handling to advance.

Yellow - pellet gun, must demonstrate expertise in marksmanship to advance.

Green - single shot .22 rifle or pistol, single shot 410 shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in powder cartridge knowledge, handling and safety, as well as cleaning and maintenance of powder guns to advance.

Blue - revolver, .32 or less, bolt action or lever action .22 rifle, 20ga. over/under shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in mechanical actions as well as safely clearing jams to advance. Highest rank that can be approved by a single Black Belt.

Purple - revolver any size, any size bolt, lever or pump action rifle, any single, double or pump action shotgun. MILESTONE: Demonstrated expertise in all basics. Eligible to instruct in basics under supervision of Black Belt. Must log 250 hours as basics instructor and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Brown - semi-auto handguns rifles, shotguns, 10 round magazine max, must demonstrate expertise in semi-automatic repeating actions, and also weapon control, safety and accuracy in single, timed and rapid fire WHILE UNDER STRESS, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance. MILESTONE: If 21 years of age, an carry, but NOT concealed.

Red - semi-auto, no magazine limit, MILESTONE: CCW. Must log 250 hours as intermediate instructor under the supervision of a Black Belt, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Black - FULL AUTO rifle, pistol, shotgun, no magazine limit. MILESTONE: Eligible to be licensed as instructor. Must pass a peer review committee of higher rank Black Belts to advance.

2nd Black - sub-machine guns.
3rd Black - machine guns.
etc.


This scheme, A) does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment, B) insures adequate training, C) places the decision about who is responsible enough in the hands of others who are trusted at that level.

Perfect? Of course not. But a lot better. I mean seriously, how often do you see a news story about a Black Belt running wild? It takes dedication to reach that level, and if you are a nutcase, your Sensei, Sifu or Gunny is going to notice it while teaching you for a couple of years. This also avoids the slippery slope of creating a class of people who have been declared incompetent by some damned personality test.

So let's make Gunnery into a REAL martial art, get it recognized and sanctioned, and get the NRA to lobby the legislators to place the decision about who is qualified into the hands of the qualified.

I also like where you are going with this. As a Black Belt in Hapkido and a green belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, I walk with full knowledge of what I have to do to hurt someone and the consequences of those actions. It would be nice to see that applied to firearms, which are all too often wielded by those who lack the both the knowledge and the committment to responsibly carry portable killing power. This gets back to the discussion about CCW holders. They know more, and have given their time to qualify. It is no mystery why they are much less likely to commit a crime. Black Belts are supposed to register in their county of residence, BTW.

... we have already established the pre-requisite, which is enforcing the laws and prosecuting offenders.

 

[Wyowanderer]

I'll keep that in mind the next time I worry that the government is going to confiscate my car so I can't hurt anyone with it... how else should firearms be regulated? If they are not, then how can they possibly be kept out of criminals hands?

I'll admit that I don't know the history of gun legislation in Australia and England, but I hardly think that California was disarmed by an evil government hell bent on destruction, rather a liberal population with an underfunded legal system and people who fear guns rather then the people who weild them.)

California's law abiding "assault" weapon owners were relieved of their legally owned weapons AFTER the requirement that they be registered. Then the Supreme Court of CA decided that since criminals would be incriminating themselves, they couldn't be required to obey the same law.




I believe that law abiding citizens should have nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

You have nothing to hide in your underwear drawer, but there's no reason you ought to be required to prove you don't.

Please explain to me why additional training or screening is infringing on the right to own a firearm if we accept the fact, as you eluded to earlier, that certain people should not have guns (such as children, mentally impaired or disturbed, and criminals.


Really? you don't get the distinction?
Well, who gets to decide the questions? The standard of training? You? The gov't? I don't believe that either are qualified; I don't want the same government that can't balance Social Security/account for the money spent by the Defense Dept/etc. to be in charge of those things. And inferring that I ought to agree to "tests" for the law abiding, sane individual simply because I don't have trouble keeping the insane or children from owning firearms is just dishonest. But you don't really want an answer; you just want your way.

 

[Mr. Leary]

But you don't really want an answer; you just want your way.

C'mon now. This is a discussion. I respect your opinion and deem it important enough to dignify a response. You are right, I just want it my way. I want to keep my assault rifles instead of losing them to yet another dumb gun ban. Thats what this thread is about, alternatives to weapon bans. Its one of those things that there have to be alternatives to before the liberal axe comes down.

 

[xtatik]

Really? you don't get the distinction?
Well, who gets to decide the questions? The standard of training? You? The gov't? I don't believe that either are qualified; I don't want the same government that can't balance Social Security/account for the money spent by the Defense Dept/etc. to be in charge of those things. And inferring that I ought to agree to "tests" for the law abiding, sane individual simply because I don't have trouble keeping the insane or children from owning firearms is just dishonest. But you don't really want an answer; you just want your way.

You know, we could amass huge lists of where our government doesn't work and where it does. I don't think that argument goes anywhere in the long haul. Every day you're the beneficiary of a whole lot of government programs. As much as I like dirt roads, there are times when concrete and asphalt roads come in handy....not to mention many other services.
I mentioned earlier, that as much as I despise the NRA (more for their under the table lobby work), I'd like to allow them as much say in the matter as is reasonable. Obviously, law enforcement and maybe military expertise could be involved as well. And, right in there with them arm-wrestling (more like kicking and screaming) could be the anti-gun groups. Frankly, I wouldn't care...lock them up in a padded room and don't let them out until they learn to compromise and act like reasoned adults. We could let them out when they have a reasoned method for resolving this issue.
Obviously, I'm over-simplifying things here, but this is what I'd have in mind. There would be a great deal of work involved and it would take some time.

 

[dwh]

Although, in your model, I'd like to see the MMPI osr similar used between a Yellow and Green Belt.

Not a chance. I will never sanction the unjustified mental testing of free citizens. Before anyone can be mentally tested, their behavior FIRST has to justify it.

We must not tolerate the punishing of people, or the deprivation of their rights, for some theoretical possible future event that in all likelyhood would never occur anyway.

 

[xtatik]

We must not tolerate the punishing of people, or the deprivation of their rights, for some theoretical possible future event that in all likelyhood would never occur anyway.

I understand how you feel. But, I don't see how it could be construed as punishment. The model you presented (and a good idea) would be much more of a punishment than the MMPI. It takes about an hour, is near flawless in it's function and would save people from wasting time in your model and most importantly lives in the long run.
In your model, I don't think a character like Loughner would make it past the BB gun stage before instructors were tipped off and had to limit his advancement. Either way, he doesn't advance.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

A SAM is ordnance... it doesn't technically fall under the 2A.. although it sure would be nice....

besides, how are we s'posed to overthrow a tyrannical .gov if we cant shoot down their planes?

 

[Dave Bennett]

I think this thread needs more cowbell... it sure has jumped the shark.

 

[xtatik]

A SAM is ordnance... it doesn't technically fall under the 2A.. although it sure would be nice....

besides, how are we s'posed to overthrow a tyrannical .gov if we cant shoot down their planes?

I understand. It's just something I've lamely carried along here and used a while back in making a point on the restrictions/infringements already existing within the 2A.

 

[xtatik]

I think this thread needs more cowbell... it sure has jumped the shark.

I've gotta' fever....

 

[dwh]

I understand how you feel. But, I don't see how it could be construed as punishment.

It is certainly a punishment if it results in the deprivation or denial of rights (or privileges).

The model you presented (and a good idea) would be much more of a punishment than the MMPI...

...I don't think a character like Loughner would make it past the BB gun stage before instructors were tipped off and had to limit his advancement. Either way, he doesn't advance.

The distinction is that the instructors would make the judgment based upon his *actual behavior* not based upon *speculation about his possible future behavior*.

One way is based on observation and the other on speculation.

The MMPI is speculation and thus I reject it as a valid determining factor in the denial of rights or privileges.