One Guy's Opinion About a Middle Ground with the 2nd Amendment

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
First and foremost, I am not endorsing this guy's approach. However, I was intrigued by his attempt to tap into what he considers "the center ground" on the 2nd Amendment debate.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html

Therein lies the chasm between those seeking constitutionally impossible forms of gun control and their political opponents, who view every proposal regulating weaponry as the first step toward dictatorship. Caught in the middle are the majority of Americans who think people should be allowed to keep guns but seesaw over tougher laws regarding those weapons.
There is, however, a simple solution, a common-sense compromise that will infuriate both sets of extremists in the gun debate, but would place the United States on a saner path:
  • Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
  • Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
  • Outlaw the public display of weapons.
  • Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
  • Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
  • Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
  • Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.


While I have an issue with at least one of his recommendation and don't see eye-to-eye with him on some of his underlying assumptions, his overall approach seems to have some potential to tap into the mushy middle of the country.
 
Last edited:

BamaSC

All-SEC
Oct 17, 1999
1,840
262
207
Chapin, SC
Personally, I believe there should be reasonable limits to the 2A. The devil is in "what is reasonable". Personally, I think an American citizen has the right to own, and carry, a firearm unless deemed unfit. And the definition of unfit is yet another sticking point. But in general, if you are a mentally competent citizen, without violent crime convictions, I think that person should be able to carry a concealed weapon. I think being able to exhibit at least basic competence and understanding of when deadly force is appropriate, are reasonable qualifications. I definitely agree with the "shall issue" rule. Unless there is a very good reason, a person's 2A rights should not be denied.

That said, walking around with a machine gun seems excessive to me.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
The default has to be that someone is capable and competent barring strong evidence against that. Give government an inch and it will take a lot more. Yes, dangerous people should not have guns. But anyone else who desires should be able.
 

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
Here's my middle ground. You turn your guns in if that's what you want to do.
I'll keep mine. You know, just in case.
Here's the catch though. IF, sometime in the future, someone knocks on your door n the middle of the night and tells you to gather your family together and all of you to get on the bus (or truck, etc) that's parked out front for a short ride to a "re-education camp", don't expect me to come to your rescue. As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own.
:pDT_Aliboronz_14:
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,867
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
i personally think that if you are going to carry a gun in public, you should have to show proficiency to get a license.

i also have a problem with open carry in public places. i realize there are some that because of their jobs (carrying cash, etc) have a need to do this, but i see too many folks strutting around the grocery store with a gun on their hip.

i realize the devil is in the details (regs, etc), but imo, it is far too easy for people who have no business having guns to get lots and lots of guns and lots and lots of ammo.

i also don't really care what people keep in their homes for protection, recreation, etc. its when people who have no business doing so start toting stuff in public that i have a problem.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
i personally think that if you are going to carry a gun in public, you should have to show proficiency to get a license.

i also have a problem with open carry in public places. i realize there are some that because of their jobs (carrying cash, etc) have a need to do this, but i see too many folks strutting around the grocery store with a gun on their hip.

i realize the devil is in the details (regs, etc), but imo, it is far too easy for people who have no business having guns to get lots and lots of guns and lots and lots of ammo.

i also don't really care what people keep in their homes for protection, recreation, etc. its when people who have no business doing so start toting stuff in public that i have a problem.
IMO this was a very well written and balanced article. I agree with 92's response.
 

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
i personally think that if you are going to carry a gun in public, you should have to show proficiency to get a license.

i also have a problem with open carry in public places. i realize there are some that because of their jobs (carrying cash, etc) have a need to do this, but i see too many folks strutting around the grocery store with a gun on their hip.

i realize the devil is in the details (regs, etc), but imo, it is far too easy for people who have no business having guns to get lots and lots of guns and lots and lots of ammo.

i also don't really care what people keep in their homes for protection, recreation, etc. its when people who have no business doing so start toting stuff in public that i have a problem.
One only needs to peruse 10 minutes of youtube or liveleak videos to understand why one should always be carrying.
 

tidefanbeezer

All-American
Sep 25, 2006
3,292
204
87
46
Atlanta, GA
Definitely food for thought. I agree that there is a lot of silliness in the attempt to implement "gun control" (the barrel shroud piece in the article is a good example - it does nothing to make the rifle more dangerous). But there are also some slippery slopes - like the banning of open carry. That feels a lot like a step towards a complete ban of firearms.

There certainly is a middle ground somewhere and the author makes a good attempt at setting the middle ground. I don't think he gets it right, but definitely has some things to consider.

I do take issue with his silencer/suppressor comment. "There is no reason anyone outside of law enforcement or the military needs one except to kill people without attracting attention." A gunshot registers between 140-170 decibels (depending on the round you are shooting). The absolute best suppressors take that down to around 115-120 decibels, which is the equivalent of standing near heavy equipment as it operates. The movie/TV versions of suppressors don't exist.

That said, walking around with a machine gun seems excessive to me.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so please don't take this personally. :) I assume you mean semi-automatic rifle, not machine gun.

Machine guns are defined as a firearm that discharges more than one round with one trigger pull (typically fully automatic and 3 round burst). A semi-automatic rifle is typically magazine fed and discharges one round with each trigger pull.

Machine guns, as defined above, are heavily regulated by two laws. The first is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required certain types of firearms to be registered with the ATF, extensive background checks and a special tax. This includes machine guns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, and a host of other items (like grenades).

The second law is the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The main focus of this law was to revise provisions of earlier gun laws. However, a provision was included to ban civilian ownership of machine guns. If the gun was privately registered prior to the passage of this act, it was grandfathered in.

The long and short of it is this: a citizen can own a machine gun, however there are extensive background checks/licensing, a special tax for each NFA item you wish to purchase and it has to have been registered prior to 1986, which makes it rare and they are usually priced accordingly (think new compact car range on the low end).

All that is to say, that while someone can walk around with a machine gun, I'd guess most won't given the extreme cost.
 

BamaSC

All-SEC
Oct 17, 1999
1,840
262
207
Chapin, SC
Definitely food for thought. I agree that there is a lot of silliness in the attempt to implement "gun control" (the barrel shroud piece in the article is a good example - it does nothing to make the rifle more dangerous). But there are also some slippery slopes - like the banning of open carry. That feels a lot like a step towards a complete ban of firearms.

There certainly is a middle ground somewhere and the author makes a good attempt at setting the middle ground. I don't think he gets it right, but definitely has some things to consider.

I do take issue with his silencer/suppressor comment. "There is no reason anyone outside of law enforcement or the military needs one except to kill people without attracting attention." A gunshot registers between 140-170 decibels (depending on the round you are shooting). The absolute best suppressors take that down to around 115-120 decibels, which is the equivalent of standing near heavy equipment as it operates. The movie/TV versions of suppressors don't exist.



This is a pet peeve of mine, so please don't take this personally. :) I assume you mean semi-automatic rifle, not machine gun.

Machine guns are defined as a firearm that discharges more than one round with one trigger pull (typically fully automatic and 3 round burst). A semi-automatic rifle is typically magazine fed and discharges one round with each trigger pull.
No, I meant fully automatic weapons. That's an example of what I think is a reasonable restriction.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
The default has to be that someone is capable and competent barring strong evidence against that. Give government an inch and it will take a lot more. Yes, dangerous people should not have guns. But anyone else who desires should be able.
Just give us this measly income tax of 3%. We promise we won't ever take more.
Just give us the measly little act of corporate welfare. We promise we won't do it any more.
Just give us this one small increase the the power of the Federal government by ratifying the XIV Amendment, we promise it will only be used to protect the freedmen's rights to enter into contracts, sue and be sued, testify in courts. It will never be used for anything else.
&c., &c., &c.

The history of the Federal government is one long proof that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. It is practically the Federal government's motto.
That said, I have no problem with states requiring gun owners or purchasers being required by the state to take a gun safety class and screening prospective gun owners and purchasers for insanity and felony conviction. Either should be a disqualifier.
 
Last edited:

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
I think we should also have laws on the books that charge the gun owner with a crime if they leave their gun lying around and a child gets it - we have far too many injuries and deaths every year due to careless gun owners leaving their firearms unlocked. I'm a gun enthusiast but if I am not carrying it, it's locked up.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.