Posted on 10/18/2017 5:54:06 AM PDT by marktwain
How does the United States pass good gun laws and prevent bad ones? President Trump had the best response.
“We'll talk about that later,” Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about gun reform Tuesday morning.
A nation has to have good laws if it is to survive and thrive. Since nations came into existence, it has become obvious that a ruling authority, or government, is necessary for people to survive and thrive. Without a ruling authority, force becomes the only law.
The strongest, the best with weapons, survive as long as they can fight, defend, or subjugate others. Mankind has painfully learned a central authority is necessary to reduce internal violence and to defend against external threats.
But, the government itself becomes a means to prey upon people, both internally and externally. The central dilemma of good government is to find a way to optimize the level of government power. Enough for internal peace (domestic tranquility) and to prevent invasion (provide for the common defense), but not so much as to become oppressive (secure the blessings of liberty) while promoting the general welfare.
The genius of the United States was in recognizing the dilemma and designing a system to accomplish those objectives. Most governments in the world do not acknowledge the problem.
Democracy was an early approach to prevent government from becoming tyrannical. But democracies have severe disadvantages. One of these is that they are subject to emotional crises. Groups of people are subject to making, or of being convinced, in the heat of the moment, of doing things they never would do if they took the time to coolly consider the problem, or legislation to solve it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I would also like to see Schools build gun ranges and use them for gun safety and marksmanship training. Start in the 5th grade when kids are still impressionable.
Underground is surrounded by natural berms. It’s mostly a favor to the other tenants of the park, plus that much space is a lot more expensive than if you double decker.
Seems to me that you could get the same advantage by using an "earth shelter" design over full underground, which will have to be built a lot more robustly to handle the weight of the earth cap.
"It’s mostly a favor to the other tenants of the park, plus that much space is a lot more expensive than if you double decker."
How so (is it a favor)??? I don't see any advantage of full underground over "earth shelter" for the other park tenants. It still seems like the full under approach is going to be a lot more expensive, and that finding a "tenant" for the "ground" floor difficult.
How so (is it a favor)??? I don’t see any advantage of full underground over “earth shelter” for the other park tenants. It still seems like the full under approach is going to be a lot more expensive, and that finding a “tenant” for the “ground” floor difficult.
Likely depends a lot on how pricey the ground is.
If you want more benefit, make a subsidy for the range to double as a fallout shelter.
I’m just trying to understand the reasoning behind his points. Putting the facility in an industrial-zoned area I get. And berming I “somewhat” get, but underground I don’t.
And I’ve got kind of an odd view of second amendment facilities, as I think every county should provide AT LEAST ONE government-provided range available for every citizen’s use, either for free or a very nominal fee, so that every citizen has the opportunity to be “well-regulated”.
I really should explain the idea from “below the ground up”.
To start with, land in industrial parks is ridiculously expensive. But at the same time, a lot of that land is used for often empty warehousing. And even when product is being warehoused, it is not being sold, so is seen as an expense.
Industrial parks are also often hosts to louder and dangerous businesses, dealing with lots of chemicals, and requiring lots of filtration, venting, recycling, and other requirements. So as a rule they are sensitive to projectiles being used nearby.
On the plus side, their zoning is almost perfect for a shooting range. Commercial ranges in municipalities often have to be underground, but are sometimes small and cramped, with just a single shooting lane, inadequate ventilation, and other problems.
So placing a range underneath a warehouse would have much cheaper rent, splitting the cost with the warehouse, could be spacious, perhaps as big as a bowling alley, would be temperature, noise, and air quality controlled, and be comfortable enough for families.
Being in a municipality would also guarantee a big customer flow through, including qualifications for local police and National Guard, school shooting clubs, and lots of other folks year around.
Other than packaged food and drink, a classroom, a play area for young children, there could be a gun accessories and maintenance and cleaning shop, and likely other retail.
I see most of your points, but still am not sure. It it seems to me that it all comes down to weight load on the “roof” of your shooting range. It seems to me that a warehouse would be highly unlikely to have a “basement”, given the possibility of very heavy loading per square foot of the warehouse contents on its floor (and your range roof).
I’m not very familiar with warehouse engineering design, but all the warehouses I have ever been in were concrete slab on grade...but then that was in South Louisiana, where the water table is just a few feet (or less) below ground level.
With just poured slab it would be a problem, but prestressed concrete slabs are much sterner stuff. Since they are commonly used, the right kind could probably be bought “off the shelf”. They would still need internal girder support.
The word was used in context to point out the danger of mob rule (democracy)
Don't see how that will work without SCOTUS overturning Wickard and Raich.
Please see post #30
We are looking at a potential, probably likely, of having an originalist and textualist majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in 70 years.
Raich should certainly be overturned, Wickard is less likely.
The Commerce Clause has now been interpreted to mean almost exactly opposite of what was intended.
But that's not what the author was describing. He was talking about the failure of democracies.
I agree. The Commerce and General Welfare Clauses have been interpreted to mean essentially "ignore the rest of this document".
I agree. The Commerce and General Welfare Clauses have been interpreted to mean essentially “ignore the rest of this document”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.