TexasCHLforum.com

A Modest Proposal.
Even though we have a 2nd amendment that says we have a right to Weapons, as citizens/militia members of the United States, it has been corrupted and “Interrupted” over the last 200 years to be somewhat unrecognizable from what it was intended for.
So my modest proposal is to give into the Gun Control (not Banners) Goons with a Twist.
I’ll go through a 4 week training course (Through the DPS, Military or a specially created agency) Once every 10 years. The Course will include safety, proper firearms storage/cleaning, background checks, mental evaluations ect
After the completion of this course which will be on par to that of Any LEO or Military Unit, I will licensed to Open Carry, Conceal Carry, Anywhere, at anytime, on State, Federal. I can own any Machine Pistol, Machine Gun, Semi Auto, Revolver, Shotguns and Rifles of Any Size barrel, Silencers, AP Ammo, Incendiary Rounds, Hand guards, ANYTHING and everything short of, RPGs and Bombs/mortars.
I can also walk around with a Cane Sword, a Sword, Bowie Knife, Baseball Bat, ASP, Baton, Billy Club, Knife, Switchblade, Pepper Spray, Tazer, ect.
The course will be Free and paid for by the YOU/ME the Tax Payers.
Also proper fire arm safety will be taught by local Law Enforcement at the Middle School and High School level.

What do you think?

Nope.
Too obvious.
Too honest.
Too thoughtful.
Too intelligent.
Never fly.

And I've been wanting to see that all of my life (but I won't yet say how long that's been)!

The framers of the Second Amendment had cannon, I want cannon, and mortars are currently legal Class III, so why shouldn't we have them?

Nope we gave in in 1968, and several other times since, it's time, in the spirit of fairness after all, for them to give in to us for a change. No courses, no licenses, no permits, no "mental evaluations."

Go Jim Longley. You are so right my friend.

ATGATT

Except in this case the "G" stands for guns.

Mark, I understand the motivation and appreciate what you think it will accomplish, but there are two fatal flaws:

First, it is a right, not a privilege. It should require no more regulation than free speech or religious expression require. Rights are not granted by government. They are "natural" or "God-given" (depending on your personal spiritual bent), and the proper role of government is to protect them, not to regulate them. When a government places burdens on those rights, its legitimacy comes under question.

Secondly, what government can grant you, it can also take away. That is why our government doesn't grant us our rights, and why we call them "natural" or "God-given." These are our rights regardless of whether or not we have any government at all. Our Constitution presupposes these rights to exist prior to the creation of the document, and experience teaches us that it is dangerous to give government any power to regulate them.

I am going to paraphrase a passage of Bible scripture here, not to make a point about religion, but to use it as an illustration of the proper role of government, so please don't read this as proselytizing. The passage being paraphrased is Philippians chapter 2, verses 5-8:

Government's attitude should be the same as that of the Founders:
Who, being imbued with great power by the citizens,
did not consider great power something to be grasped,
but made themselves nothing,
taking the very nature of servants,
and acting according to these principles.
And finding government a necessity,
they humbled it
making it obedient even to the citizenry —
even to the least of us!

Less government is always better than more, particularly when it comes to my right to exercise my constitutional rights. Always.

You are all correct, just one of those things thats been kicking around my head for awhile.

Well, clearly I'm outnumbered, and out of the general philosophy, here. Sorry.

I still cannot see where he said that 2A would be replaced. I would personally jump at the opportunity for that kind of training. It would certainly be an improvement over the current situation. We must take our advances as we can get them, just as the anti's have been doing for over a hundred years.

OldSchool wrote:I still cannot see where he said that 2A would be replaced.

I don't know any state in the USA that requires a license to keep and read a bible, or go to church.

boomerang wrote:

OldSchool wrote:I still cannot see where he said that 2A would be replaced.

I don't know any state in the USA that requires a license to keep and read a bible, or go to church.

You are 100% correct, its like I said something thats been kicking around my head, I know its not really workable, but I can dream

The Annoyed Man wrote:Mark, I understand the motivation and appreciate what you think it will accomplish, but there are two fatal flaws:

First, it is a right, not a privilege. It should require no more regulation than free speech or religious expression require. Rights are not granted by government. They are "natural" or "God-given" (depending on your personal spiritual bent), and the proper role of government is to protect them, not to regulate them. <SNIP>

It would do us all well to look at the history of the "progressive" movement, how they see themselves as different from Marxists and how the goal is unlimited government. Both Teddy R and Woodrow Wilson were key in getting it on solid ground and John Dewey was an incredible evangelist for the movement. Once you have a grasp of the history and you note that BHO, Hillary and McCain refer to themselves as "progressive" it gets real scary real fast.

OldSchool wrote:Well, clearly I'm outnumbered, and out of the general philosophy, here. Sorry.

I still cannot see where he said that 2A would be replaced. I would personally jump at the opportunity for that kind of training. It would certainly be an improvement over the current situation. We must take our advances as we can get them, just as the anti's have been doing for over a hundred years.

OldSchool, you're absolutely right that the opportunity for that kind of training should not be passed up if one is able and can afford it. That's not the issue with what marksiwel proposed. He proposed the following:

After the completion of this course which will be on par to that of Any LEO or Military Unit, I will licensed to Open Carry, Conceal Carry, Anywhere, at anytime, on State, Federal. I can own any Machine Pistol, Machine Gun, Semi Auto, Revolver, Shotguns and Rifles of Any Size barrel, Silencers, AP Ammo, Incendiary Rounds, Hand guards, ANYTHING and everything short of, RPGs and Bombs/mortars.

All of the rights (not privileges) he has listed here are already yours under the 2nd Amendment. To cede to government the power to control your access to that right is to cede the right itself. I have a CHL because that is the status quo. But I would not relinquish further power to the government — state or federal — to limit my access to those rights.

Besides, as a practical matter, who really thinks that the gummint is going to allow a mere citizen to walk around with a mini-gun, license or no license?


I agree we should be able to carry whatever we can afford to buy, but can you imagine a few of these showing up at Tea Party events? The back-blast would be tremendous.

Old School, it's not that I totally disagree that such training should be provided, it's the licensing the right part that I object to.

I do have a counter proposal though.

Include a requirement for firearms training in all school curricula, right from pre-school (What the heck is that? If it's school, how can it be pre-school? It's indoctrination in the guise of organized babysitting, that's what it is.) on up. Start with the simple things, just like you would teaching a kid about a new puppy - "This is not a dangerous thing, but treat it badly and it will hurt you." on up to organized rifle and pistol teams at the high school level (like we useta had) and by college we will be fielding some great Olympic shooting teams.

Most here are probably too young to remember when schools had shooting teams, or when HEARST NEWSPAPERS sponsored the "Hearst Citizen Rifle Teams" but it's a time from yesteryear that we should return to.

No licensing. Good training.

Am I the only one who read the thread title and immediately thought of Johnathan Swift and his "modest proposal" on eating babies/children?

I was slightly dissapointed....




I 100% agree with more training, Though, the more hoops the citizen has to go through, the less people will be armed. And the criminals have never jumped through the hoops to begin with..

7075-T7 wrote:Am I the only one who read the thread title and immediately thought of Johnathan Swift and his "modest proposal" on eating babies/children?

I was slightly dissapointed....




I 100% agree with more training, Though, the more hoops the citizen has to go through, the less people will be armed. And the criminals have never jumped through the hoops to begin with..

Yeah thats what I was referencing.