Posted on 12/19/2001 4:45:03 PM PST by Eagle Eye
You equate gun safety classes with "paramilitary" training?
I helped teach a hunter safety course -- in a high school -- and I assure you that there was definitely no "paramilitary" aspect to the class, period.
"However, the Scouts used to offer gun safety training, and most communities can still offer fire arms safety and other safety classed via the local fire department."
By your own logic, you are advocating having the Boy Scouts and the fire department provide "paramilitary training"? Odd...
It'll be Daschle going *glug* *glug* when he realizes that everyone and his brother -- including millions of non-gun-owners -- are signing up for the "free money" by purchasing a ten dollar "gun safe" to stick -- empty -- in the broom closet. (Or conversely, to sell for $7.50 to the guy next door after it's served its purpose!)
All they'll have is a list of people bright enough to buy an empty box for a hefty return. The law doesn't seem to be concerned with "guns", after all -- merely boxes! :)
If this thing passes, plan on seeing major promotion aimed at people who don't own any guns, but who could dearly use a tax break.
And if the left is stupid enough to make an explicit demand that one demonstrate "ownership" of a firearm, I think a sharp lawyer could probably blast that argument out of the water as a backdoor registration method.
Nope, I think they're gonna have to give the credit to any and all who can demonstrate purchase of a "gun safe" (i.e., ten dollar box), regardless of whether or not they own a gun.
These idiots have a "Wily Coyote" streak a mile wide. Always scheming, always plotting, but not very bright.
About ten minutes after this thing goes into effect, they'll be feeling like W. Coyote does when he finally looks down and realizes he's run off the edge of the cliff.
I say the same thing you do, but then I have been accused of being a closet libertarian.
No, I equated firearms AND explosives training along with his proposed SERE classes as para military training.
Context, my friend, context.
Please go back and read what I posted.
IMO, if the government is willing to buy a military rifle for each individual, it is not likely that they are going to try to confiscate the privately held arms. Community storage of arms is not unheard of in American history.
Okay. I did.
Now back to the point I was trying to make.
The gun-grabbers would jump at the chance to buy every man, woman, and child a gun if it meant that they could decide where the gun is stored, who gets to use it, and when they get to use it.
If the "security of a free state" can be assured by having the government supplied weapons in a central location controlled by the government, then the gun-grabbers will claim that the "requirements" of the Second Amendment are met and there is no longer a need to tolerate private sales of firearms. Those firearms which are already owned may and must be stored in the central facility.
I think I remember seeing the Brits mandating that hunters join a "hunting club" and store their guns at the club's central location. It will be a small step to nationalize the clubs, take over the records and storage of the clubs, and thereby disarm anyone foolish enough to count on having a firearm which is under the control of the government.
I'm in 180* disagreement.
IMO, if Congress ever passed something like this, it would be a monumental change in attitude. That in itself would be incredible.
What do the gun grabbers gain if they buy us rifles, pay for ammo and storage, then dictate useage? Nothing.
Now if you want to play "what if" and throw in all kinds of suppositions that they might require private arms also be stored commonly, then we've changed the assumptions and the scenario is no langer valid.
Do you really think that the gungrabbers would let a few million more military rifles and basic loads of ammo out into the public to try to control everything? Wouldn't that be like giving arms to your enemy right before you invaded?
Initially, they don't have to buy anything. The US government already owns more rifles than it has soldiers. What do you think is stored in those huge warehouses in Hawthorne, Nevada?
The gun-grabbers just have to relocate the firearms long enough to make the case that somehow the Second Amendment is not an impediment to additional gun laws because the security of the free state is protected by the community owned and "controlled" firearms.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 instituted a $200 tax on automatic rifles. Do you think that you can just pay the $200 dollars and buy such a rifle? Of course not. In most places you have to get the permission of the local law enforcement chief and he doesn't have to give it.
Isn't that a case of transferring control in a situation to a local but turning it into an infringement?
I was not suggesting that it was likely that gun-grabbers would ever do anything to create weapons. But if you and I support the idea and cause it to happen the way it was described above, the gun-grabbers will have a party right after they make the new rules regarding access.
Exactly!
Merry Christmas, Travis.
Corporations do not need to receive such permission. Given that full auto weapons have generally increased in value over time, a corporation could justify such a purchase as being for purposes of "investment"; it would be necessary, though, that the gun be maintained in such a condition as to appreciate in value. Taking the thing out every evening and pumping 1,000 rounds through it might cause the government to wonder whether those doing so were violating their fiduciary duties to the corporation.
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.