Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: a Well Regulated Militia (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I suspected I'd missed that angle. (0+ / 0-)

    While there are some good comparisons to motor vehicles, it's a flawed model.

    Your point about the waiting period is valid; but at the same time, if you have 9 guns, I don't understand a pressing need to get the 10th "right now".  Yeah, I'm sure it's an inconvenience to wait, but I think the intent of the waiting period is a good one with a net benefit to society.

    And yes, there are no doubt differences of opinion on "reasonable"; but I do think some limits could be found within the acceptance of the majority of gun owners.  One of everything?  Two of everything?  Three so you can take a couple friends?  Maybe, but when you get into 10s and 20s; you're past private ownership and into weapons cache.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:58:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You've missed the primary objection to the (7+ / 0-)

      comparison to motor vehicles entirely.

      The restrictions you cite on motor vehicles are on their operation in public property; restrictions largely absent when it comes to ownership and operation elsewhere.

      Your suggestion of application of similar restrictions on arms (which, unlike vehicles, are constitutionally protected) are on their possession on private property.

      This is why the analogy is disingenuous from the get-go.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:01:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, (0+ / 0-)

        I'd pretty much avoided the MVA analogy and didn't discuss motor vehicle restrictions at all.  I was addressing only some of the gun issues.  As KV mentioned, I missed the point of his post, so maybe it appeared otherwise.  

        And on your point, I agree.  The public/private property aspect is one of the least analogous IMO.  Most motor vehicle deaths occur on public property, while most gun deaths occur on private property.  Most people don't purposely run over people they know; and most gun owners don't accidentally shoot random strangers.  It makes perfect sense that whatever restrictions are imposed on either, they must apply to their respective danger areas.

        You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

        by rb608 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:13:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A vast majority (most) of gunowners don't ever (8+ / 0-)

          shoot anyone.

          MF and RKBA Member. This bear keeps and bears arms. -9.00, -4.05

          by KVoimakas on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and most drivers aren't ever involved in fatal accidents.  What we're discussing are the laws the government can impose to enhance the safety associated with the ownership and operation of both devices.

            You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

            by rb608 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:24:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Apart from state laws (6+ / 0-)

              pertaining to purchase of new firearms, it's none of the government's business whether I have guns or how I use them on my own property.

              I am not a militia member. I'm too old to be drafted and am female anyway. I learned to shoot (handguns) when I was 11, bought my first rifle at age 18. Also have grandpa's shotgun, which is an unregistered antique that works just fine (he was sheriff of a small frontier town in Indian Territory).

              I've been vegetarian for almost 40 years, do not hunt. Live on acreage surrounded on three sides by National Forest for which seasonal hunters get permits, then ignore my 'Posted' signs and think they've every right to hunt on my property with dogs and while drunk. I've begged to differ more than a few times with the business end of grandpa's shotgun, and will no doubt have to do it again come bear season.

              We get rabid skunks and coons fairly regularly. We have had to put down mortally injured animals escaped from the hunt or starving but unfriendly abandoned hunting dogs. We get quite a few bears in the trash and compost every year, have never had to actually fire at 'em (a shotgun would just make them mad). We do some target practice in the bottomland a few times a year, usually after the pumpkins come in. And the neighborhood has a nice outdoor black powder range we can use any weekend with or without our well-armed neighbors.

              Wildlife isn't the primary threat out here, the hunters are. Nearest cops are 15 minutes away on a good day if they responded immediately. They fully expect us to be able to protect ourselves if need be.

              Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

              by Joieau on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:45:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sounds to me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                like you have as legitimate a use for firearms as I could imagine; and I surely would not advocate any restriction that would limit the uses you discuss.  That said, I have to disagree in general terms with the statement:

                it's none of the government's business whether I have guns or how I use them on my own property.

                Not everyone's need is like yours, and not everyone is as responsible as you.  IMO, the government has a reasonable interest in what people in general do with guns on their property in terms of keeping children safe, keeping domestic partners safe, and keeping other citizens safe.

                You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

                by rb608 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:40:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did mention state (5+ / 0-)

                  regulations on new purchases. That's registration with a background check, and a trigger lock on handguns. We've never had a handgun in the house because there were always children and now grandchildren around, though I sure wish I'd inherited Dad's pearl-handled six-guns, but my cousin got them (he's a dealer). Now that my live-in grandsons are 'adults' (19 and in college), I'd like to get at least one like those. It would sure be easier to wield than the shotgun, as I head into my seventh decade of life!

                  Kids in these parts really do learn to shoot before they're 12. There are safety courses by the Scouts, as extracurricular 'sports' in the Jr. High and High Schools, and weekly out at the Sheriff's yard. Grandsons have been proficient with knives, long bows and crossbows since childhood. One of 'em killed a timber rattler just yesterday up at the tracks (quarter mile down the driveway), which is the only place any of us can get reliable cell phone reception. It tried to bite him, so he decapitated it with a railroad spike because he didn't have his knife on him.

                  Usually we just leave 'em be unless they decide to move into the kept acre and a half of yard and garden. Only 2 rattlers in 18 years were that dumb, but copperheads will move right on in and act like they own the place! When in the heavy forest, just take a snake-stick (walking staff) to flip 'em off the trail. But if you make enough noise everything but copperheads will get out of the way before you ever see them.

                  My point was and still is that so long as I jump their registration hoops on the purchase of a new gun, they don't get to know how I keep or use that or any other gun on my property. They can't come up here on regular rounds to ask me what I'm doing with my guns, come into my house to inspect my arsenal and storage arrangements, or require me to inform them whenever we shoot pumpkins in the bottomland or this season's rabid coon. If somebody gets shot they can investigate the particulars. If not, it's none of their business.

                  Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

                  by Joieau on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Excellent response! (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas, theatre goon, Joieau

                    If you didn't already have your hands full with family, I'd ask how you feel about younger men... but this isn't that kind of site.  8>(  

                    •  Thanks, PavePusher! (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, PavePusher, theatre goon

                      The idea that the government (any level) has some kind of 'reasonable interest' in what people do with their weapons on their own property at any given moment on any given day is blatantly absurd. Regulation hoops are there to ensure that criminals and crazy people don't get guns (though they can and do avoid the hoops), and that the guns are legal to have (no automatics or sawed-offs). That is where their 'interest' ends entirely unless you want to carry in public or you shoot somebody.

                      Just as with any other regulated activity and/or right, the government's interest is then entirely based upon some violation or incident in which they are rightfully involved. What you and your mate do at home is none of their business unless you get divorced and it ends up in court. Where you drive, what you drive, etc. is none of their business so long as your car and driving habits stay legal. What you write or say, what church you belong to or don't, etc., etc., etc. are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. The same is true of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

                      Once the hoops are jumped they cannot come inspect your day to day or long term use and storage thereof. I can't imagine any freedom-loving Democrat believing otherwise! Sure, people can be dangerous in the city or in the boonies. But they can't be arrested until they actually do something illegal. Criminals have no problem getting guns. Why anyone would want to disarm the law-abiding public (officially assumed mature and responsible) is totally beyond my ken.

                      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

                      by Joieau on Wed May 26, 2010 at 09:03:36 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  No limits. (10+ / 0-)

      Not on how many. What's a cache? Some people think my 9 firearms is a cache. Some people would say my buddy's 200+ firearms is a cache.

      We collect. For him, it's his retirement fund and something he enjoys (like collecting deadly stamps.)

      Besides, if you want to get down to it, there are so many variants, how do you limit? Only one rifle? Only one pistol?

      Enforce what we have on the books now (federally)

      MF and RKBA Member. This bear keeps and bears arms. -9.00, -4.05

      by KVoimakas on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:15:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site