A required amendment for any gun control bill

[martybegan]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You can't be suggesting that pols and their favored factions actually be bound by the same laws they pass to govern everyone else? That borders on political blasphemy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A required amendment for any gun control bill


How about just one simple little rider that must be included with any "gun control" bill:

"This law will be null and void if it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms in any way... which, of course, it does."

 

[Truthseeker420]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Who is talking about disarming anyone?

 

[martybegan]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Who is talking about disarming anyone?

When a law says I cannot have weapon X, but someone else, who by the law is exactly the same as I am, can have weapon X, I am being disarmed compared to the other person.

Police officers are civilians, just like I am. They are not the military, and should not have any special privilidges that other civillians do not have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Who is talking about disarming anyone?

Lots of people, which is why when they go out of their way to pretend that is not their intent I get suspicious.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

 

[martybegan]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

 

[JoeB131]

Fun to watch the Gun Whacks piss themselves...

 

[gallantwarrior]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

Feudalism provided such great protection for the serfs, barely one step above slaves.

 

[JoeB131]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

Most cops I know keep their service weapons handy.

Okay, let's get real here. The two reasons why you gun whacks give for wanting guns are pretty silly.

The first is you need to protect yourself from hoardes of criminals- but...

1. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
2. The FBI only recorded 201 justified homicides with a gun out of 10,000 recorded that year.
3. 80% of murder victims know their killers.

Guns in the home do not make you safer.

The other logic you give is that you are sooooo paranoid the government is going to kill you. Again, the government will always have bigger guns, better guns, and be better with them. And frankly, if it comes to a shootout between a gun nut and a cop, the sympathy is always going to be with the cop.

 

[martybegan]

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

Most cops I know keep their service weapons handy.

Okay, let's get real here. The two reasons why you gun whacks give for wanting guns are pretty silly.

The first is you need to protect yourself from hoardes of criminals- but...

1. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
2. The FBI only recorded 201 justified homicides with a gun out of 10,000 recorded that year.
3. 80% of murder victims know their killers.

Guns in the home do not make you safer.

The other logic you give is that you are sooooo paranoid the government is going to kill you. Again, the government will always have bigger guns, better guns, and be better with them. And frankly, if it comes to a shootout between a gun nut and a cop, the sympathy is always going to be with the cop.

1) Than number has been debunked countless times, stop using it.
2) not counting the times people used a gun to defend themselves WITHOUT killing someone, or even the deterrence value an armed populace has.
3) Not related to legal gun owners. The crackhead knows his crack dealer, when one or the other shoots the other one, how is that related to legal gun ownership?

Why do you enjoy the idea of a ruling class that has more rights than you do? Do you feel the need to be a sheep, mewling for whatever handout your "betters" are willing to give you?

 

[JoeB131]

[

1) Than number has been debunked countless times, stop using it.
2) not counting the times people used a gun to defend themselves WITHOUT killing someone, or even the deterrence value an armed populace has.
3) Not related to legal gun owners. The crackhead knows his crack dealer, when one or the other shoots the other one, how is that related to legal gun ownership?

Why do you enjoy the idea of a ruling class that has more rights than you do? Do you feel the need to be a sheep, mewling for whatever handout your "betters" are willing to give you?

Gee, maybe because I want the guy who has to go into a building full of criminals to be armed, trained and screened before we give him a gun.

Some whack who thinks he's a comic book supervillian, no, I don't want him to have a gun and I don't want people who are arming like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming to have them, either.

You don't need a gun.

Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. Gun Whacks stomping their feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" is not debunking. It's a tantrum.

 

[martybegan]

[

1) Than number has been debunked countless times, stop using it.
2) not counting the times people used a gun to defend themselves WITHOUT killing someone, or even the deterrence value an armed populace has.
3) Not related to legal gun owners. The crackhead knows his crack dealer, when one or the other shoots the other one, how is that related to legal gun ownership?

Why do you enjoy the idea of a ruling class that has more rights than you do? Do you feel the need to be a sheep, mewling for whatever handout your "betters" are willing to give you?

Gee, maybe because I want the guy who has to go into a building full of criminals to be armed, trained and screened before we give him a gun.

Some whack who thinks he's a comic book supervillian, no, I don't want him to have a gun and I don't want people who are arming like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming to have them, either.

You don't need a gun.

Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. Gun Whacks stomping their feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" is not debunking. It's a tantrum.

Its a study in a single county in the pacific midwest. We have been over this, you lost, and your refuse to admit it.

If a gun that is allowed to other civillians is perfectly capable of protecting them, then the same should be for police. They have NO rights greater than my rights.

You have NO say with regards for my need for a gun. you have no NEED to post on this board and exercise your first amendment rights, but I have no RIGHT to stop you, just as you have no RIGHT and government has no RIGHT to say what arms I can and cannot own that other civillians, including police can own.

Baa like the sheep you are.

 

[JoeB131]

Its a study in a single county in the pacific midwest. We have been over this, you lost, and your refuse to admit it.

No, you guys just think a tantrum is an argument.

Kellerman repeated his study in other cities and got the exact same result. If anything, I think Kellerman was generous.

The FBI found only 201 gun deaths that were "justifiable" in 2011 in a year that saw 32,136 gun deaths. WHich means that only 1 out of 160 guns were used in acts of self defense compared to the other 159 that were murders and suicides.


FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

If a gun that is allowed to other civillians is perfectly capable of protecting them, then the same should be for police. They have NO rights greater than my rights. .

It's not a matter of "rights". The Right to bear arms is a collective right, not an individual one. It's why the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY talks about a well-regulated militia.

You have NO say with regards for my need for a gun. you have no NEED to post on this board and exercise your first amendment rights, but I have no RIGHT to stop you, just as you have no RIGHT and government has no RIGHT to say what arms I can and cannot own that other civillians, including police can own.

Baa like the sheep you are.

You are right. I have no right to post on this board. I recognize I am a guest, and that if I break the rules I can have my posts removed or even be banned from the board.

The government has ALREADY decided you can't have missiles, Nukes, vials of anthrax, a 50 cal machine gun, or a whole host of other weapons the military has and you can't. This isn't in dispute.

If we limited private gun ownership to just "home defense", we could ban a lot more weapons. And some of them, we should. Or at least, we should keep them out of the hands of people like Loughner and Holmes, both of whom were able to buy guns despite being batshit crazy.

 

[martybegan]

Its a study in a single county in the pacific midwest. We have been over this, you lost, and your refuse to admit it.

No, you guys just think a tantrum is an argument.

Kellerman repeated his study in other cities and got the exact same result. If anything, I think Kellerman was generous.

The FBI found only 201 gun deaths that were "justifiable" in 2011 in a year that saw 32,136 gun deaths. WHich means that only 1 out of 160 guns were used in acts of self defense compared to the other 159 that were murders and suicides.


FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

If a gun that is allowed to other civillians is perfectly capable of protecting them, then the same should be for police. They have NO rights greater than my rights. .

It's not a matter of "rights". The Right to bear arms is a collective right, not an individual one. It's why the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY talks about a well-regulated militia.

You have NO say with regards for my need for a gun. you have no NEED to post on this board and exercise your first amendment rights, but I have no RIGHT to stop you, just as you have no RIGHT and government has no RIGHT to say what arms I can and cannot own that other civillians, including police can own.

Baa like the sheep you are.

You are right. I have no right to post on this board. I recognize I am a guest, and that if I break the rules I can have my posts removed or even be banned from the board.

The government has ALREADY decided you can't have missiles, Nukes, vials of anthrax, a 50 cal machine gun, or a whole host of other weapons the military has and you can't. This isn't in dispute.

If we limited private gun ownership to just "home defense", we could ban a lot more weapons. And some of them, we should. Or at least, we should keep them out of the hands of people like Loughner and Holmes, both of whom were able to buy guns despite being batshit crazy.

The milita is only in affect when the state calls it, and that is to be "well regulated." The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms has no such qualifier, and is indeed "not to be infringed."

Again, when you look at only homicides when it comes to self defense you are falsely assuming self defense only "counts" when you kill your attacker.

As for your classic "nukes" argument, all of those are artillery or crew serviced weapons, not "arms". Semi auto rifles are "arms, and thus protected.

Its amazing how afraid you are of your fellow citizens, and how ready you are to suck the dick of your governmental betters.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The milita is only in affect when the state calls it, and that is to be "well regulated." The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms has no such qualifier, and is indeed "not to be infringed."

That happens to be one way of reading it.

It wasn't the way it was read for most of history and even the insanity that is Heller doesn't make it an absolute right.

Again, when you look at only homicides when it comes to self defense you are falsely assuming self defense only "counts" when you kill your attacker.

As for your classic "nukes" argument, all of those are artillery or crew serviced weapons, not "arms". Semi auto rifles are "arms, and thus protected.

A 50 cal can be operated by a single person. I've done it. So can an M-60.

Its amazing how afraid you are of your fellow citizens, and how ready you are to suck the dick of your governmental betters.

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

 

[editec]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Marty?

They're going to control gun onwership by TAXING them and forcing gun owners to keep insurance.

Mark my words, that is what is going to happen.

Yes, I fully understand this will only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.


Yes, I completely understand this will do little to nothing to keep guns out of the hands of spree killers.

They are going to do the same thing to guns they originally did to Marijuana.

As they did not (at the time) have the constitutional right to control hemp, they basically made it impossible to have by taxing the crap out of it.

the war on drugs has been and will continue to be a WAR ON CITIZENS.

And that war on drugs has been the government's model for how to conduct war on citizens that will now be applied to gun owners.

And you right wingers thought they only hated hippie, didn't you?

When they came for the hippies I did not object because I was not a hippie...

 

[jon_berzerk]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

that would be pretty hitleristic

the nazis allowed firearms for certain people

mostly other party members

 

[martybegan]

[

The milita is only in affect when the state calls it, and that is to be "well regulated." The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms has no such qualifier, and is indeed "not to be infringed."

That happens to be one way of reading it.

It wasn't the way it was read for most of history and even the insanity that is Heller doesn't make it an absolute right.

Again, when you look at only homicides when it comes to self defense you are falsely assuming self defense only "counts" when you kill your attacker.

As for your classic "nukes" argument, all of those are artillery or crew serviced weapons, not "arms". Semi auto rifles are "arms, and thus protected.

A 50 cal can be operated by a single person. I've done it. So can an M-60.

Its amazing how afraid you are of your fellow citizens, and how ready you are to suck the dick of your governmental betters.

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

A 0.50 cal can be owned actually, just you need a federal liscense and permission of local law enforcement.

No issue with that, as it is a derivative of the gatling gun, which was a crew serviced weapon. Just because it can be operated by one person does not make it an "arm" One person can load and fire the 16" gun on a battleship, it would just take them a long time.

My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?