Comments on: A good standard http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/ Gun info by shooters, for shooters Thu, 17 May 2012 06:33:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Ian Argent http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3339 Ian Argent Thu, 01 May 2008 17:09:55 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3339 "Militia" is as much a law enforcement/peace enforcement role as it is national defense. IMHO of course. “Militia” is as much a law enforcement/peace enforcement role as it is national defense. IMHO of course.

]]> By: Alcibiades McZombie http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3338 Alcibiades McZombie Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:09:43 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3338 I thought 20mm was already NFA? I thought 20mm was already NFA?

]]> By: djmoore http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3340 djmoore Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:53:51 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3340 I don't think this is throwing anybody under the bus. It's a good, big, first step back up the slippery slope. If Heller shows that the Second Amendment can be used to overturn the most egregious laws, it will become acceptable for gun owners to come out of the closet. As "police" guns again become common, and no bloodbath ensues, the fear of guns will decrease, and stupid restrictions will relax. I don’t think this is throwing anybody under the bus. It’s a good, big, first step back up the slippery slope.

If Heller shows that the Second Amendment can be used to overturn the most egregious laws, it will become acceptable for gun owners to come out of the closet. As “police” guns again become common, and no bloodbath ensues, the fear of guns will decrease, and stupid restrictions will relax.

]]> By: MichaelG http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3343 MichaelG Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:20:38 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3343 His (and Kim's) standards would seem to throw the .50 cal & 20mm folks under the same bus as the NFA people. That bus is starting to get a bumpy ride I think. I understand incrementalism in seeking to restore our lost liberties. I agree with the goal. I think that we need a different direction. Consider the problems we have had with the "sporting purpose" definition in the past. The 2nd amendment is no more about policing than it is about hunting. If people really want to go in that direction then I suggest looking at combining military use, past/present/future, with collecting and sporting. And consider something else. How much will such discussions benefit our community as opposed to dividing it? To me this sounds like another version of "reasonable regulations". On the other hand, I do not really believe that we will not be without some regulations. But I do believe that those regulations should be aimed at individuals whose choices in life have demonstrated their inability to be a part of the society that wishes to insure the liberties of all that choose to be a part of such a goal. His (and Kim’s) standards would seem to throw the .50 cal & 20mm folks under the same bus as the NFA people. That bus is starting to get a bumpy ride I think. I understand incrementalism in seeking to restore our lost liberties. I agree with the goal. I think that we need a different direction. Consider the problems we have had with the “sporting purpose” definition in the past. The 2nd amendment is no more about policing than it is about hunting. If people really want to go in that direction then I suggest looking at combining military use, past/present/future, with collecting and sporting.

And consider something else. How much will such discussions benefit our community as opposed to dividing it? To me this sounds like another version of “reasonable regulations”. On the other hand, I do not really believe that we will not be without some regulations. But I do believe that those regulations should be aimed at individuals whose choices in life have demonstrated their inability to be a part of the society that wishes to insure the liberties of all that choose to be a part of such a goal.

]]> By: Billll http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3342 Billll Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:13:27 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3342 The militia clause seems to set a standard of "whatever a typical infantryman might carry". This, of course might me modified by saying _one_ infantryman, under, say foot patrol conditions, so anti-tank rockets and crew-served weapons would still require a permission slip. Still, this would include full-auto such as the AR, AK, and similar battle rifles. If it's good enough for the Chicago police, it's good enough for us. The militia clause seems to set a standard of “whatever a typical infantryman might carry”. This, of course might me modified by saying _one_ infantryman, under, say foot patrol conditions, so anti-tank rockets and crew-served weapons would still require a permission slip. Still, this would include full-auto such as the AR, AK, and similar battle rifles.
If it’s good enough for the Chicago police, it’s good enough for us.

]]> By: Alcibiades McZombie http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3341 Alcibiades McZombie Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:49:53 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/29/a-good-standard/#comment-3341 So much for anti-aircraft cannons. Of course, those would probably fall under a national security threat or whatnot. So much for anti-aircraft cannons. Of course, those would probably fall under a national security threat or whatnot.

]]>