HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm proposing an idea tha...

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:06 PM

I'm proposing an idea that should satisfy both gun nuts AND liberals/progressives...

We keep the 2nd Amendment in place but we replace all guns with guns they used when 2nd Amendment was written. No clips, no automatic's sold to civilians. You have to place bullet in barrel, push down with loader, sprinkle gun powder, fire, repeat.

47 replies, 4057 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm proposing an idea that should satisfy both gun nuts AND liberals/progressives... (Original post)
FarLeftFist Jul 2012 OP
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #1
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #2
nichomachus Jul 2012 #10
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #12
Progressive dog Jul 2012 #26
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #28
HockeyMom Jul 2012 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #4
apocalypsehow Jul 2012 #5
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #6
SecularMotion Jul 2012 #22
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #37
JoeyT Jul 2012 #42
Logical Jul 2012 #7
ileus Jul 2012 #8
Warpy Jul 2012 #9
auburngrad82 Jul 2012 #15
Ian David Jul 2012 #11
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #13
dreamnightwind Jul 2012 #34
yellerpup Jul 2012 #14
Mopar151 Jul 2012 #16
TheCowsCameHome Jul 2012 #17
hack89 Jul 2012 #18
Mojorabbit Jul 2012 #20
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #24
flamingdem Jul 2012 #19
seabeyond Jul 2012 #21
unblock Jul 2012 #23
flamingdem Jul 2012 #25
unblock Jul 2012 #27
Yavin4 Jul 2012 #29
Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #30
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #31
felix_numinous Jul 2012 #32
DanTex Jul 2012 #33
felix_numinous Jul 2012 #38
DanTex Jul 2012 #44
felix_numinous Jul 2012 #40
sibelian Jul 2012 #36
dreamnightwind Jul 2012 #35
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #39
belcffub Jul 2012 #41
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #43
sofa king Jul 2012 #45
Shankapotomus Jul 2012 #46
NCTraveler Jul 2012 #47

Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:07 PM

1. K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:21 PM

10. Well, that's what the Founders intended. Were they lunatics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #10)


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:53 PM

26. That is not logic

I'm not going to explain this to you, take the time to think about how the internet differs from the press and then consider how nuclear weapons (or even assault rifles) differ from muskets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #26)


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:08 PM

3. Ok, 22 RIFLES

Cannot be concealed and carried in public, but can protect in PRIVATE HOMES. If they want to hunt, they can with their rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:11 PM

4. Actually it doesn't satisfy either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:14 PM

5. That would be a good start. A better one would be to interpret the 2nd amend

properly in the first place:

In our modern context, it should, if interpreted by the courts correctly, only apply to National Guard members on active duty while serving in defense of their country, or the state they live in doing rescue work, backup to law enforcement, etc.

That's what the Founders meant when they wrote it, only they were "militias" back then, and that's how they would tell us it should be interpreted in our modern context were they around today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

6. Many liberals are gun owners

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:41 PM

22. And most gun nuts are conservatives

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

37. I think some would consider all gun owners "gun nuts"

I was informed early today on here that I'm a member of the "pro gun lobby," whatever the hell that is, just because I own a gun. Another poster believes it is the duty (and should be the law) of every gun owner to have to educate the public about hyperviolence, and prove that they (said gun owner) aran't a criminal.

As Is aid, many of us are both liberals and gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:46 AM

42. That's the danger of being a prohibitionist.

The guy that has a glass of wine is just as much under the influence of demon alcohol as the guy that starts drinking gin at 8 in the morning.

Many of us would support a whole bunch of regulation, but they'll never have our support because they don't want regulation, they want an outright ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

7. So you collect all normal guns first? n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:17 PM

8. Single shot 20ga shotguns.

Can be used to protect your home.

Can be used to hunt. Shot and Sabots/slugs.

Change the rules to allow 5" barrels w/pistol grip and they could even be CC'd


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:20 PM

9. Well, the powder goes in first, I'm afraid, then gets tamped down

with wadding, followed by the ball.

However, that doesn't serve people in rural areas well. Two shots are needed at the minimum: the first is to get the bears startled out of the garbage; the second is to drop the one bear in a million who charges.

Still, I'd love to see a drive by shootout between two cars full of punks using flint locks or even blunderbusses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

15. The time it takes to load a muzzle loader is the cooling down period

hopefully by the time you get the damned thing loaded you're not angry at your wife any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:22 PM

11. In Massachusetts, you don't need a permit for those. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:25 PM

13. A strict constructionist would agree with you ... or argue ...

that we should, as individuals, all be allowed to have nukes ... because after all, arms are arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:40 PM

34. That's the way I understand it too

A nuke in every home. Landmines in our front yards. Obviously the constitution was not meant to allow this, and the whole argument for constitutionally protected gun ownership collapses when viewed under its logical extensions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:28 PM

14. K&R!

That is the perfect criteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:30 PM

16. Muzzle-loaders are far from idiot-proof

use them wrong, they kill at both ends......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:31 PM

17. Oh come on, think of the suffering and pain, for heaven's sake.

...in the gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:32 PM

18. And the 1st Amendment will not apply to electronic media? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:35 PM

20. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:42 PM

24. +10,000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:34 PM

19. I recommend th Long Rifle





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:37 PM

21. my husband who is a gun owner is a firm believer in laws that restrict.... i am not sure

 

exactly what it is. but, he thinks there should be restriction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:41 PM

23. i have a more workable idea.

just have MUCH stiffer penalties for crimes involving guns (whether loaded or not, whether brandished or not).

like 6 month suspended sentences become 6 years hard time.


the idea is simple -- you have a right to carry a gun, but if you choose to do so, you take on a major responsibility to stay within the strict confines of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:51 PM

25. That won't stop a pyschopath, they want prison

and lots of victims.

Better prevention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 03:59 PM

27. my solution isn't nearly as effective, true; but it has a far better shot at becoming reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:05 PM

29. Chris Rock Had The Best Answer: Charge $5000 per bullet

Constitution says nothing about bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:07 PM

30. I'm against such an absurd proposal, of course, but it would have one upside:

 

My ammunition inventory would be worth around $150 million. Hmm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

31. Yes - This

That routine is the best.

Let them put the bullets on layaway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:39 PM

33. Gun control seems to work pretty well in the rest of the world.

Every wealthy nation except for the US has gun violence under control. Sure, there are some illegal guns and black markets in Europe, Canada, Japan, etc., but overall there are far less guns and far less gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #38)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:15 AM

44. Guns and drugs are completely different.

I'm not in favor of complete prohibition of guns. However, the blanket statement that "prohibition doesn't work" is incorrect. It depends what you are trying to prohibit, and guns are very different from drugs or alcohol. Whereas alcohol prohibition failed, and the drug war is not going very well, prohibition of guns has worked out very well, for example, in Japan. Sure, there are a few illegal guns in Japan, but for the most part, it is a gun-free society.

And, like I said, every other first-world country has stricter gun laws than the US, and in every single case, those gun laws are working better than the gun laws in the US in terms of preventing gun violence. There are places in the world, like Mexico, where gun laws are strict and yet there are illegal guns all over the place. But this is because Mexico is a borderline narco-state. If you look at places like Canada, UK, etc. that are comparable to the US, there is simply no basis for thinking that tighter gun laws would lead to a massive illegal gun smuggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

36. "Maybe people will think I am living in a dream world"

Your position makes even less sense than a dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:42 PM

35. And if you want something more modern

than what was allegedly protected in the constitution, you can have it with one tiny government mandated modification to the weapon: the barrel must be bent 180 degrees to point back at the bearer of the weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:15 PM

39. And no speech more advanced than the hand operated printing press!

 

Also they didn't know about things like DNA and fingerprints. So those won't be included in the whole "illegal search and seizure" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:19 PM

41. the Girandoni Air Rifle existed about 10 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.

One was used by Lewis & Clark. They had a tube magazine containing 20 rounds, the ballistics of a .45 acp and an effective range out to 150 yards...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:07 AM

43. Won't work.

 

Someone will make a flintlock with a skeleton stock, and the gun-haters will scream "assault rifle"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:46 AM

45. Those are sometimes called "antique firearms."

Until 2006--and still all over the Internet today--it was widely believed that even convicted violent felons could own "primitive weapons" like muzzleloaders because they were specifically excepted from the definition of a "firearm" in some federal laws and in BATF regulations. The US Code offers this:

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

and

(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

That didn't wash with the Wyoming Supreme Court, in Harris v. State:

http://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/2006/446994.html

They concluded that since their state did not define "firearm," as the feds did, that the default dictionary definitions, rather than federal legal definitions, apply in Wyoming.

I tossed that up because asking Google the question revealed the trifecta of bad information sites: ask, wikianswers, and yahoo. Hilariously, I noticed that one of the "best answers" to the question of whether or not felons can own muzzleloaders was, "go to a law library and look it up." Idiots. Not even law students go to the law library anymore, unless they're looking for the notes some other, better student wrote in the margins of the books that are all scanned, digitized, and often freely available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:50 AM

46. How about working on a non lethal

weapon? Surely, our scientists and engineers could figure this one out where a weapon can quickly incapacitate an attacker without killing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:52 AM

47. John Kerry doesn't agree.

Is he not liberal/progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread