if the Taliban had free range in the U.S., who is going to disarm them? — James Riley

Are you really believing that Taliban has some chances to free range U. S.?
Well I do understand your perspective of living in a country which is threatened by more than a half of the world.

movie — James Riley

Ah yes! I can see now. He would fit in this time perfectly!

Unless it is one of those Swiss army guns that also opens cans and gets stones out of horses' hooves. — unenlightened

Un, those are knives not a gun and please don't suggest that they get banned because you are quite right about the hoof derocker.

Are you really believing that Taliban has some chances to free range U. S.? — javi2541997

I view Trumpster Republicans as American Taliban.

Ideally, nobody. They should all be destroyed.

In reality? Law enforcement. But this should be overlooked by a democratic committee to prevent abuse of power.

There are approximately 400,000,000 guns in the USA, more than one per human. And most of those guns were well-made and very durable - designed to last generations. So those advocating police be unarmed, as many may be in Great Britain, is pure fantasy. And no one seriously talks of confiscation except under special circumstances, like Red flag laws.

Many citizens have concealed weapons permits, and the state of Texas allows anyone to sport a concealed gun. Laws vary from state to state. I had to take a course taught by a retired cop and undergo a standard FBI and state background check. I use my permit only on rare occasions.

↪TheMadFool
It seems that a lot of problems are solved by the gun.
— Prishon
I think the OP is being ironic.

Gun ownership, gun responsibility/irresponsibility, possession are all separate issues that get tangled together.

Here's my wish list - given that in the US guns are going to be a fact of life for a while - modeled after car ownership.

1) Ownership. Controlled and licensed. Successful completion of both education and training required.

1. a) National gun registry. All guns registered.

1. b) Control over types and capacities of guns. No ownership of guns inappropriate for stated purposes. Every gun owned, owned for a stated purpose.

2) Possession/carrying. Zero open carry except uniformed/authorized personnel. Concealed carry controlled and licensed, training and education required. Also, concealed weapons must not be visible or easily discernable. A weapon seen or easily detectable is on longer concealed, but is open-carry.

3) Transporting. Controlled and licensed. Education and training required. Arms being transported either locked away or disabled and taken apart.

4) Responsibility. Gun owners responsible for their guns at all times while owned, including what their guns might be used for.

5) Penalties for owners for violations. A range, depending on the violation but in all cases severe and understood to be severe, without exception. Including absolute responsibility for bullets and any damage they might do.

Some years ago a woman in the semi-rural town of Hermon, Maine was shot dead in her backyard by a hunter who claimed he thought she was a deer. That is, she was targeted and not killed by a stray shot.

"On a crisp, blustery day in 1988, Karen Wood, 37, a mother of twins, was shot to death in her backyard by Donald Rogerson, a local hunter who said he mistook her white mittens for the underside of a deer's tail." https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105518
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/karenwood/

The hunter was not indicted for anything. It's my view that being responsible for his bullet, he should have been automatically guilty of at least involuntary or negligent homicide, or worse.

Guns are serious. Too many irresponsible/incompetent clowns and cowboys have them. Let owners, as well as gum wielders, pay their part of the true cost of gun ownership in the US. — tim wood

An excellent draft for any future gun laws/restrictions. Kudos to you. :up:

Yes, I think the OP was being ironic but guns were, still are, probably will remain as a member of the solution set for many people, especially in those areas that are part of the gun culture like the underworld, gangs, druggies, human and drug traffickers, etc.

My personal take on guns is that the condom principle applies in full: better to have it and not need it than to need and not have it.

Along the same trajectory, my hunch is that the condom principle in re guns is a chain reaction: I buy a gun, you too need one to protect yourself against me; someone else needs one to equalize with the two of us; lather, rinse, repeat. Since guns are already available in the market, and people have already bought them, the chain reaction I was talking about is in progression full throttle as we speak.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)? — Prishon

A useful approach to determining 'who should wear a gun' is to apply strict standards of attractiveness and style.

"Does a gun look good on this person?"
"Do the person's clothing choices add to, or detract from appearance of the gun? And visa versa?
"Does wearing a gun match their general style of dress, comportment, make-up, hair, gait, pitch of voice, cock size, and so forth?

No one should be allowed to make up for a little dick by wearing a big gun.

Clearly short fat people should not be allowed to wear a gun or guns, just as they should not be allowed to wear blue suede shoes, pink pants, a teal colored shirt, and an orange jacket. Fat people wearing lycra are disgusting, and so are fat people with two guns hanging from a gun belt. Just stupid. Fat people wearing lycra are too attractive a target for their own good.

Women may be allowed to carry a gun in their purse, provided the purse is attractive and the gun is small and easily handled. Hauling a sawed off shotgun out of a Hermés Birkin bag is just not done in America or any place else. Well, maybe in Venezuela, these days.

Male gun wearers should be unconditionally handsome, at least as tall as average, but not too tall; physically fit, dressed in rugged clothing featuring perfectly faded denim, earth tones, brown leather boots, etc. They should be visibly well hung, too, Might as well have the complete package. (Note "puny dick/no gun" rule.)

Acne-pocked youth should definitely not wear guns. Republicans, especially, should not be allowed to wear guns, considering how unsightly Donald and Mitch are. Homely hookers should not be allowed to sport guns, and tacky looking johns should not be allowed to have a gun tucked into their belt either. As a group, Blacks and Whites should not be allowed to wear guns because both are too large a catchall, and will include too many badly dressed, badly groomed, homely, and stupid people. Same for all other groups, Stupid people, of course, should not be allowed to have guns, let alone wear them.

Anyone wearing lycra, unless they are really fit and well-endowed, should be subject to arrest. And even if they are well endowed, certain bizarre color combinations should not be allowed.

Men with annoying reedy high pitched voices should not wear guns and annoying women with low-pitched raspy voices should not be allowed either. Speech coaches can train people to speak attractively. Want a gun? Get thee to a speech coach. And maybe a charm school, too.

Remember what Oscar Wilde said: "Only shallow people do not care about appearances."

Anyone wearing lycra, unless they are really fit and well-endowed, should be subject to arrest. — Bitter Crank

This should be the law, regardless of gun carrying. But those wimps on the Supreme Court would probably shoot it down. :sad:

An eminently sensible and substantive contribution to this great social policy conundrum.

determining — Bitter Crank

Best answer!:victory:

I just lost ten pounds from reading that.
Don't worry, I am still not permitted to wear Lycra according to a strict interpretation of the guidelines.

Maybe its the best to make them obligatory. Like that you think twice before using it. Like nuclear weapons.

Another example is the armed occupation of the State House in Michigan. You know why those Republicans, and the Republicans who assaulted the Capital, and Cliven Bundy's dad, et al, were not mowed down by crew-served, belt-fed automatic weapons fire, like BLM and Antifa would have been? It's not just because they were white. It's because they are armed to the teeth. — James Riley

Perhaps it had something to do with the rule of law. Imperfectly though the law is applied, I don't recall groups of BLM or Antifa activists being mown-down either.

I heard an interview once with a former FBI sniper who told a story about some militia-type dude they arrested, and he's spouting all this anti-government nonsense. Our guy tells him, "I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. If we wanted you dead, you'd be dead. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you."

That's what the rule of law is supposed to look like, and often it does, just not often enough.

It seems to me that being armed makes it more likely law enforcement will think it necessary to shoot you, and what's more the uncertainty about whether you're armed, and the certainty that you might be armed, puts the fingers of far too many folks in uniform on their triggers. Where would you rather be a cop? In a country where guns are few and far between, or where almost anyone might be carrying? A cop shouldn't have to wonder if his life is in danger when he responds to a domestic, but that really angry guy might not welcome your interference and make his point with a Glock. (Before the modern era of tribal politics, this was a no-brainer and police chiefs everywhere favored gun control.)

Apart from the question of rights and whether guns help protect them, there is a beautiful form of life to be found through being able to go out and buy breakfast without a thought at all about who might interrupt that. Being compelled to strap on a piece before setting out kills the vibe and my freedom to seek it out.

I have lived in places where gun ownership did encourage a recognition of boundaries. I have lived in places where that forced people to live in shameful and disgusting ways.

It is funny how an instrument can be taken up to escape compulsion and yet lead to new forms of compulsion. Cue the Pesci bit in Goodfellas regarding the different possible meanings of "funny."

I heard an interview once with a former FBI sniper who told a story about some militia-type dude they arrested, and he's spouting all this anti-government nonsense. Our guy tells him, "I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. If we wanted you dead, you'd be dead. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you." — Srap Tasmaner

I heard a similar story where the government snipers were, after the fact, given vids of them in the scopes of counter snipers at Bundy's place. All of them had been marked for death by several trained-up former spec ops guys (counter-snipers and much further out), had they squeezed off a single round.

That FBI guy may not think he's at war with the people, but when they infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms, they are.

Where would you rather be a cop? — Srap Tasmaner

In the same exact place that I'd rather be a despot.

I'm sure the people will be watching to see if the rule of law is applied to the traitors of January 6th. And I'm not talking about the foot-soldiers on the ground who trashed the building. I'm talking about the admins, logistics guys, coordinators and, most especially, those people in the Capital Police, law enforcement and investigative agencies, intelligence, military, and executive. And, last but not least, any legislators that were in on it. If they burn them down to the ground and purge their ranks of the insurgents, then I'll have a little more faith in the rule of law.

But there are two things I know: It's extremely difficult to break the blue or green wall, and the further up the chain you go, the less likely it is that anything will be done.

In the same exact place that I'd rather be a despot. — James Riley

Sure. But that's cold comfort to police officers for whom almost any interaction could turn fatal.

All of them had been marked for death by several trained-up former spec ops guys (counter-snipers and much further out), had they squeezed off a single round. — James Riley

Pardon my French, but big fucking deal. If Bundy's crowd were deemed to be involved in an actual insurrection, the US Army could just obliterate them, even if they took out a few ATF agents first.

If the military and the innumerable police forces in the United States were complicit with a tyrannical regime, all the gun clubs in America couldn't do a damn thing about it. That's a Red Dawn fantasy. In the meantime, guns are a real problem everyday for real people in the real world.

but big fucking deal. — Srap Tasmaner

You're the one who mentioned FBI snipers having some turd in their sites. My big fucking deal was just a big fucking deal to your big fucking deal.

the US Army could just obliterate them, — Srap Tasmaner

Like they did the Viet Cong and the Taliban? The U.S. Army is composed of Americans, many of whom would not shoot mom and pop. And the U.S. Army would not have a snow ball's chance in hell against Americans. First, there is the fact they can't operate on U.S. soil unless certain conditions are met. When those conditions are met, see sentence number one.

That's a Red Dawn fantasy. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, tell that to history. The single most powerful nations on Earth continually get their asses handed to them by insurgents (Patriots/King George, U.S./Viet Cong, Mujahedeen/USSR, Taliban/U.S. etc.). Sure, there were states behind the scenes but there is no reason to think that would not happen here. Besides, none of those folks were armed up like we are, and none of the states had militaries composed of mixed units like ours. It's not Red Dawn fantasy. If you remember, Red Dawn was a foreign force.

The only real threat is if the military and the innumerable police forces and the civilians are on the same side. Sounds like the "right" is working that up and the left has forfeited.

Check out the Mulford Act, by the way.

but when they infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms, they are. — James Riley

And what right would that be, exactly? Do you mean this right? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'd like to think you know how to read that. In any case, the places where that is understood to legally mean anyone can do whatever you want with any gun they care to own are few and and between. So what "right" are you talking about?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." — tim wood

Yes, that right. And I do know what it means. And I think I dumped, in a PM, a lengthy legal analysis of that on you when I first arrived at this site. If you can find it, you can copy and past they whole thing here.

Is this argument important to you?

I mean, in theory you're explaining to me why your right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. It shouldn't matter whether the little arsenals you and your friends have amassed would actually be of any use if the shit hit the fan. It would still be your right, even if it were pointless to exercise it.

I would just encourage you to spend as much time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns as you've evidently spent thinking about the imaginary war you and your buddies would win against a possible enemy wielding potential guns, someday, maybe, or maybe not.

I would just encourage you to spend as much time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns as you've evidently spent thinking about the imaginary war you and your buddies would win against a possible enemy wielding potential guns, someday, maybe, or maybe not. — Srap Tasmaner

Do the math and then we can talk about which people we should be thinking about.

Btw, what do you think about other developed countries that have not succumbed to tyranny despite not having high rates of gun ownership? How is it that we're not the only advanced democracy left? Have all these other countries just been lucky so far?

Btw, what do you think about other developed countries that have not succumbed to tyranny despite not having high rates of gun ownership? — Srap Tasmaner

I only think about those countries when it comes to setting examples I agree with, like universal single payor. I don't think about them at all when I think of the RTKBA. While I believe they have that right, I think that right is denied them. They may be good with that. That's their business. It's kind of like freedom of speech. It's my understanding the UK (and other developed countries) have a view on speech that would cause quite the stir if it were implemented in the U.S. But hey, if they don't want to protect their rights, that's up to them.

It depends on the gun. Civilians should be allowed to own and carry shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers. Anything else, only the military and police should own and carry.

So no thoughts on how they've managed to avoid falling into tyranny without an armed population to prevent it?

No, not really. I guess I could guess: I think they are more civilized than we are. I also think they suffered through two world wars on their own turf in a matter of decades. That might tire a body out, and bring a little wisdom. I also think they have us to come to their rescue if some punk like Hitler decides to get all uppity again. They also (I think) keep their 1% on a tighter leash, paying their share. Finally, I figure they have greater respect for the rule of law than we do. Sure, they have crime too, and racism, and drugs and whatnot. But over all, they seem to be more inclined to do what they are told to do, when they are told to do it, as fast as they can and to the best of their ability. Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting notwithstanding.

P.S. I think they are packed in a little tighter than we are.

Mind you, I'm way out of my element talking about them. I've spent time in the far east, down under, and a few other places, but not Europe. They don't need people like me and I can live without them.

It's just that, a belief is a bit like a wager: there are stakes and there are payouts.

Maybe our guns do stave off tyranny, or would if they had to. Maybe not. What stakes are we putting up here? Because it looks to me like we're betting a great number of lives a year on this theory, and it's not a bet any other country will take.

If you're convinced the Braves will win the pennant and the World Series, but no one else on earth is betting that way, maybe you'd hesitate before betting your life's savings on it.

At any rate, you'd probably want to find out if they know something you don't.

Because it looks to me like we're betting a great number of lives a year on this theory, — Srap Tasmaner

Like I said, do the math and we talk about which people we might better worry about.

Why not be a little less cryptic? Go ahead and make your point. I'll listen.