CNN - Sachs: A Modest Proposal On Guns

Modest... LOL

The logic failure. As though people will willingly "deposit" their weapons and ammunition in a "bank vault" for all practical purposes. Not only would most Americans never comply with such stupidity, even if they did, criminals will not.

See, in this reasoning, your rights are not violated as you technically OWN firearms but they are under lock and key of someone else.



Sometimes the stupid hurts so badly

www.cnn.com...

Here is an example of a regulation that could provide an effective compromise. If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.

Similarly, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting, and if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable for hunting purposes, then require that the hunters collect their weapons from a registered hunting depot and redeposit them after hunting, with the guns and ammunition properly accounted for. Or if gun enthusiasts want to visit gun shows, then fine, but purchases of regulated weapons would have to be delivered to designated sites, such as shooting ranges or hunting depots.

Gun ownership at home would be protected, according to the protections recognized in Heller. Gun ownership more broadly would also be protected, for hunting and sports shooting, but subject to protective regulation. We would end the day when a madman could lawfully own and keep powerful assault weapons wherever they like, and then carry them at will to a chosen location to murder those gathered, but still recognize the right of Americans to own, collect and shoot their weapons for lawful purposes.

No thanks.

If you tie ‘common sense’ gun control to ‘common sense’ abortion laws then both rights would be safe. No one wants to have Government mess with their freedoms.

So basically what they're saying is that lawful gun owners need to keep their guns at a designated repository until they want to use them? What in the hell will that solve exactly? Are the illegal gun owners going to do the same? What if some psycho decides to go get his gun out of this repository to "hunt" but then goes to a mall and starts shooting up random people? What exactly will this solve in that case?

A really poorly thought out "proposal" on this "journalists" part. I agree, this is a very stupid idea and shows severe lack of forethought and logic.

a reply to: infolurker

I inherited a handgun this year. First one I've ever owned. My wife put in the safe, which is a BAD IDEA.

If a burglar comes in our house while we're sleep, do you think he will stand still while I try to remember the safe combination, and then open it to retrieve the gun, load the gun, and shoot him?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: infolurker

I inherited a handgun this year. First one I've ever owned. My wife put in the safe, which is a BAD IDEA.

If a burglar comes in our house while we're sleep, do you think he will stand still while I try to remember the safe combination, and then open it to retrieve the gun, load the gun, and shoot him?

Do you have kids? If not no need for a safe....

2x post

a reply to: infolurker

Yeeeeaaaaaaaahhh. That's an idea that's going nowhere fast. There's no popular support for anything like this and I can't see that changing any time in the near future.

a reply to: carewemust

You went and purchased a safe for just one hand gun???

I think most homes depending upon kids or whatever are probably ok with having a hand gun in the night stand next to the bed without much worry. If it's for home protection especially because that's where you'll most likely need it in an emergency.

If you start getting a bunch of them a safe is good.

My dad always kept his 357 in his night stand next to the bed. Loaded but secured but at least easily accessible for when he'd be the most vulnerable and might need it, in bed. His hunting rifles and shotguns were secured for storage.

But ya, a single gun in a safe and unloaded is gonna take some time if you ever need it in a pinch.

Attention all bad guys.

Lots and lots of guns, enough to start a smallish war, together with crap tons of ammo are now available at any shooting range.

Ram the gate doing 98, let them truckers role 10/4.

Just lets put them all in one place and advertise the fact.

Stupid is as stupid does.

P

a reply to: infolurker

It'd be like owning a semi-auto/high-powered rifle and only being allowed to borrow it. Also, once they were stockpiled in the secure locations, there'd be no way of resisting future bans.

a reply to: infolurker

Guys like him are just crazy, there isn't really anything else you can say to defend this stupidity.
You really gotta wonder how he got that crazy?
I am dying to see who the first person will be to come in here and defend something like this.
Here you go......how about they make it entirely voluntary and they pay you $1000/month tax free per gun that you keep at their stupid registered hunting depot or shooting range?
And I get to take them out anytime day or night, no questions asked.
If they made it worth my while, I might consider it.

This is modest?

What, pray, is draconian?

Would someone, somewhere, at sometime, please explain to me what is so damned difficult to understand, that law abiding citizens are not the problem...and those are the only ones who would even consider, for half a second maybe, going along with something so mind bendingly asinine as this "modest" proposal.

Do they think that I'm going to trust some minimum wage person, who I don't know, nor trust, to protect/over see my rifles and handguns--how irresponsible is that? There are only three people I trust with my guns--me, myself, and I. No one else.

a reply to: seagull

Sure I will have a crack.

It's not the law abiding citizens that are the problem.

The problems come in the form of guns everywhere, so much so that even the undesirable people can get them,and when they do they make all gun owners look bad.

Think of it like this.... Lolly shops as in shop that sell sugar everything are not the problem, the problem lies with all the sugar addictions and the people addicted to the sugar.

Banning sugar will only leed to people sourcing sugar illegally.... Prohibition has never worked, be it drugs, alcohol, guns or whatever other poison you have as a vice.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It was more of a rhetorical question, but thanks!

the problem is, as you point out, the criminals, and the illegal guns out there to be had. This "modest", though in reality it's idiotic, proposal does nothing to address that. It doesn't even present a starting spot.

a reply to: infolurker

Unless they put these vaults in cinder pits and open BLM land... who the heck is going to do this?

a reply to: seagull


Im far too stupid to pick up on rhetoric, sorry about that.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: infolurker

I inherited a handgun this year. First one I've ever owned. My wife put in the safe, which is a BAD IDEA.

If a burglar comes in our house while we're sleep, do you think he will stand still while I try to remember the safe combination, and then open it to retrieve the gun, load the gun, and shoot him?

If you're getting burgled by armed assailants so often you need a firearm at hand have you never thought of moving?
After the second time of being burgled I would look for a nicer area rather than buy a hand cannon.

I think a reasonably modest solution is that there should be a way to mute all "news" coming from CNN and North Korea because it’s a lot of pointless rhetoric and always a waste of time to listen to. Where can i get that plugin for my browser.

No offense OP, its just nothing i want to read about (as hilarious as it is)... Man free to kill deer at will by order of the United Nations xD

a reply to: infolurker

, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting

First, who gets to define what's "unusual" or "high powered"?

if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable

Again, who gets to decide?

protective regulation

Yeah....where have we heard that BS before.

I have an idea.....Since drunk drivers kill 10s of thousands, everyone has to park their car in a designated area, turn over their keys and you can't drive till you take a breathalyzer. No more "unusually powerful" cars, either. 50 HP should get you anywhere you want to go. And while we're at it, since they want to do an ammo count on us every time we go out, how's about we track the mileage on your car and it better not be outside the range of your stated trip or you got some 'splainin' to do.

Take "reasonable" gun control and apply it to anything else that kills people and see how "reasonable" it sounds then.

To be clear, my reply is not aimed at you.

a reply to: infolurker

That would be a bad idea.

Ownership of an item, should mean ones ability to possess it, without reference to any authority, organisation, or the necessity to have some quartermaster mind it for you.

Look at the constitution. Do any of the provisions made within the second amendment, mention hunting, or sports shooting, or any recreational or professional use of those arms? Nope.

The purpose of owning a firearm from a constitutional perspective, is that one has a gun to protect oneself from government which knows not its place. From a strategic standpoint then, if one considers the purpose of gun ownership in the United States as it pertains to the constitution, putting all ones guns in a location remote from ones abode, means that all the guns will be held in centralised locations, where the government would have an easier time, were they to come along and try to remove them, or take control of the storage locations, so that the government could control when you have your weapons, and then if you have your weapons.

That is what we are talking about here, the ability of your government to prevent the citizens from getting their hands on the weapons they need, to keep their government as honest as it can be. Now, you can argue that times have changed and that no citizen militia could possibly hope to blah blah blah blah...

But nothing anyone could say, can change the fact that the constitution still reads the same way it did, on this specific point, when it was first penned. The purpose of ownership of a firearm, is against the possibility that one ever needs it to make the government do as it is damned well told. Its not self defence from criminals, its not for plinking at the range, or scoring a six point buck in season. Its for sticking in the face of your government, and declaring "Things shall be as the people demand, not as the administration of the day would like". The second amendment is there to prevent... Well, government like your nation has had for at least sixty straight years, frankly. Corporate owned, corporate controlled, financially motivated, greedy, disloyal, dishonest, underhanded propagandist, megalomaniacs, who should never have been given the keys to a car, leave alone the codes to nuclear weapons, or control of the most powerful nation in the developed world.

While the constitution reads that way, a person serious about their second amendment rights (and responsibilities), is never going to agree to put the tool by which they might free their nation from oppressors, out of their easy and immediate reach. It would be madness to do so. They would no more think of doing things this way, than I would think of storing my screwdrivers in a vault ten miles away, when I need to remove and replace screws on the job at a moments notice!