I suspect that we are not as different as our postings here would suggest. All the issues you raise about safety and inexperience are valid.

In fact, I would suggest that many things that can be legally purchased, from automobiles to swimming pools, require more knowledge and common sense than many people display.
Firearms clearly fall into the category of tools that require understanding and training to use and handle safely. I am an NRA instructor, I believe wholeheartedly in training. I work with new shooter orientations, I teach hunter safety classes for my state. I am in favor of more training, education, and practice for everyone, including myself. The danger at a certain point is becoming too comfortable and allowing complacency to creep in.

Should there be a requirement to get that training prior to purchase? Should regular participation in a militia be required? I have my own ideas, and all of us that are serious about civilian ownership need to be involved in that discussion. Most of the proposals I hear about involve banning certain types and classes, restricting ownership and carry, and seemingly moving in the direction of the elimination of private ownership. I am opposed to that, and will continue to be.

Web postings do not allow for nuance, inflection, or the social cues we depend on in face to face communication. I have again read this entire series of comments, and if I have come across too stridently, I apologize both to you and to our host, Lex. My blog is available by clicking my name at the top of the comment, and you would be a welcome guest.

ASM826

You know something? you are living up to your own own self professed inadequacies re intellect with that diatribe….I can tell you are a vertical thinker who sees the world in black/white, 1 or Zero, left/right. I’ll be brief.

I am a lifetime member of the NRA who had his first hunter safety course in 1964..Don’t go off with the 2nd amendment thing on me…complete with Concord Minutemen patriotism and all the trimmings. I know all about that and a lot more. By all means buy all the guns you want..sleep with ‘em if you want.

That is yours and every citizens right.

Let me try one last time- directly: I am concerned with the rush to purchase weapons for many who can’t even housebreak their friggin dogs..IE, purely from a safety standpoint. You may look at all weapons incidents as Darwinian Winnowing but I don’t. Do you get it now you knucklehead? Or don’t you care?

Now. As to your “Swiss model” proposal :

“My standard would be that any citizen, not a felon or mentally deficient, would be able to own the same individual weapons and equipment as the current army soldier is issued”

Does this means individual automatic weapons in the military variant described above, grenades of various types, body armor and night vision for all? Any citizen eh. This means all the people who vote (citizens)including those who can’t pass that civics test that Lex posted last week? Think carefully. Who will provide the training? No answers required.

Yes, while I agree with Jefferson quoted up above there some ‘logistical’ questions to be answered with your one paragraph proposal. Wouldn’t you say?

Sorry about the AMS vs. ASM- dislexia. Nothing personal or disengenuous intended.

b2

WRT your list of handguns, I saw a list of potential ammo bans that the anti-gun crowd (?? someone, I can’t remember who now) had as a wish list — which was any caliber that could be considered a military caliber. In other words, if the military used it, then it would not be allowed for civilian use. The list included conventional handgun loads, hunting rifles, and shotguns rounds. The only round I could see not on the list was the .22. Clearly, banning ammuntition is a backwards way to banning guns, which was this particular goal.

I wish I could remember where I saw it…

Husband’s sticking with 9mm for now since it cheaper to buy than reload currently, but he’s saving the brass. He’s still has *lots* of .45 brass from his shooting days in the Navy, so that’s not a concern yet (but the old powder might be). Besides, I can shoot the 9mm without a problem and he’d like to keep it fun enough for me to keep going with him once in a while.

You know, that Husband and Wife bonding thing.

I went back and carefully read you original comment. I think I understood it clearly. I read the other comments. I conclude that you do not see a need for me to own a pistol unless I want to hunt hogs, or a “bullet spewing assault rifle” for any reason.
I disagree with your viewpoint on this. It is clear to me that the Founding Fathers would have disagreed as well. Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

The men who took their muskets to the bridge at Concord put their lives on the line to underline what they thought was important. The reason they picked that day and place, and the reason the British had marched up out of Boston are telling as well. It had nothing to do with hunting.

Of course these are weapons with offensive capability, that’s the reason for wanting them. Even a single shot, or bolt action rifle has an offensive capability. 100 years ago, they were the weapons of the day.
There are proposals to eliminate any medium and large caliber rifles, even single shot, and to ban civilian ownership of rifle scopes. All under the same mantle you drape over my rifle, “what do you need that for?”

I think this country has only managed to be as free as it is because of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have passed ratification without the Bill of Rights. I also understand that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government. They are mentioned there to hold them up for public display. They are natural, or “God given” rights depending on your religious beliefs. In other words, they cannot be taken away. They can be infringed on, but the government that does so becomes morally unfit to govern, as the actions it will undertake to support it’s position will be illegitimate.

My standard would be that any citizen, not a felon or mentally deficient, would be able to own the same individual weapons and equipment as the current army soldier is issued. I would be willing to consider other proposals for what weapons militias would be able to own, train with, and deploy, but clearly it would include crew served weapons.

Lex’s original post, on the number of rifles and associated equipment being sold in advance of the Change, makes it clear to me that I am not the only one who is thinking this way, although they might not be as articulate.

Finally, I did not intend to use my military service as a shield. I genuinely did not have time to reread the posts until today. Having done so, I have tried to be brief but clear in my reply. If you do decide that you would like to reply, I will not hold you to your “last comment”. Please note, my screen name is: ASM826, not AMS.

I think I do know what you’re talking about. Discussing it doesn’t bother me but it might bother certain feds…is all. If people were to modify the machinery that is.

IMO, these weapons are ‘offensive’ vice defensive..unless you expect some type of ‘conflagration’ requiring firepower beyond the perimeter of the ‘castle’ . Unlike a whim for a new watch or speedboat or airplane, ownership requires a certain ’sobriety’. IMO. Seems frivolity above, unlike a longing for tools like these. Again, IMO:

http://www.connecticutshotgun.com/guns/Repro.htm

Know what I mean? Even if you don’t agree?

AMS missed my point or chooses to ignore it under a mantle of Marineship (elevated citizenship) commonly placed front and center for those not of the Green… Almost like I urge an onslaught on the 2nd amendment or something and required pushback or marginalization. LOL.

I promise. My last words on this subject. No further understanding required/desired.

b2