What do you think of this idea?

bbguns · Mar 3, 2014

Thanks for trying. 2 points:

1. The 2A should be all we need. Period.

2. To the anti-2A crowd, 'compromise' means that pro-2A people give up some of their rights 'for the children' or whatever.

Since the 2A guarantees (not GRANTS, as they'd like you to believe) our natural right, every concession on our part (even one's we might want to believe make sense, such as mental health exemptions, etc.) has resulted in continued erosion (i.e. infringement) of our rights. I don't trust them. Period.

P.S. sorry about the 'period.' Starting to sound like current White House occupant...

llkoolkeg · Mar 3, 2014

Threeband said:
How about a requirement to own a safe costing at least $1000 or $2000 for ANY firearm? The safe would be subject to random inspections by the MSP, at least twice a year, but probably not more than twice a week. Electronic sensors would monitor every time the safe is opened, communicating in real time to computers in the state's Emergency Management bunker beneath Reisterstown.

Better yet, the safe could be controlled remotely by the MSP. If you want to open it, just call them for permission. Just have your G&S ready.

(These common-sense requirements would not apply to criminals, of course.)

Hahahaha...kinda like a chastity belt for firearms but with .gov holding a skeleton key.

RoadDawg · Mar 3, 2014

Absolutely NOT...

We should not need to prove ANYTHING to the asshats in the statehouse. They need only know that we are not disapproved or otherwise disqualified by prior criminal history as the law currently reads.

A Right is simply that... a RIGHT and the 2A is very easy to read for even the most challenged folks. In fact the only ones that have problems reading and understanding it are those with a "LIBTARD Big Government Control" agenda.

What's next? Only being able to own these rifles as long as we can prove that we have a concrete bunker in the yard, where all of our firearms are stored, with a key that is held by the local Police Chief or other Government designee?

Sorry, Not to come across as a grouchy old fart or anything but... just NO!

Threeband · Mar 3, 2014

rj1974 said:
Hell no !

And who would I have to "let" in my house to inspect and how often ?

No thank you , bad idea .

For your convenience, they'll let themselves in.

Threeband said:
Better yet, the safe could be controlled remotely by the MSP. If you want to open it, just call them for permission. Just have your G&S ready.

(These common-sense requirements would not apply to criminals, of course.)

DoormanTNT · Mar 3, 2014

How bout....NOT A SHOT IN HELL.

Ill be damned if I'm found "fit" because I have a gummit approved storage facility.

It may be Maryland, but to my knowledge the Constitution still applies.

I fear my government that fears my secure guns.

Half-cocked · Mar 3, 2014

Why don't we simply ban all firearms, except for those in the hands of responsible Englishmen who are loyal to the king.

MaxVO2 · Mar 3, 2014

Threeband said:
For your convenience, they'll let themselves in.

****I was going to post that video but you beat me to it. Not only no, but hell no do we need this kind of requirement. Before long it becomes that *everyone* (except criminals) needs a safe, with mandatory inspections and recording of serial numbers (for your safety), and ammo must be kept separate in a different safe, and you can only have so much ammo, and you have to have insurance on it as it is hazardous, etc...

No way.

dblas · Mar 3, 2014

R81 said:
Allow exemptions to the semi-auto rifle ban for individuals who own safes that meet certain criteria. Some possible criteria would be: minimum weight of 250 pounds, minimum 16 gauge, minimum dimension of 4 ft tall. Similar to the way a designated collector's license exempts people from one gun a month. People interested in the exemption would have to show proof that they own an adequate safe meeting the specified criteria to secure semi-auto rifles.

How about getting behind SB 758, which would allow MSP Designated Collectors or those with a Federal C&R license to purchase and possess up to 4 "assault weapons" per calendar year?

Yes, I know, there is that ugly word "allow" and I am with everyone else on the fact that it shouldn't be needed. But think of this bill as an incremental step to getting our rights back. They take them in increments, we need to take them back the same way. The large chunk, all or none, tact will do nothing but but take us longer to get our rights back.

Now, the other side of the incremental coin, getting those that "get theirs" because of the incrementalism, to stay in the fight to get everyone else "theirs."

It is a dual edged sword.

Bolts Rock · Mar 3, 2014

risk said:
Did I need more than the 2A? No compromise.

THIS /thread

Biggfoot44 · Mar 3, 2014

R81 , thinking outside of the box is a good thing , and yes you put thought into it hoping for a good outcome. But no, not only is there nothing to gain from this , but it is activly Bad.

Vile Shadow · Mar 3, 2014

NO, NO, NO!!! :bullhorn:

The idea of having "conditions" to own the most popular rifle in the country, one that clearly falls well under the protection of the 2nd Amendment as a weapon in common use, is detestable. :rant2:

SWO Daddy · Mar 3, 2014

How about no.

NY Transplant · Mar 3, 2014

N F W

Mark75H · Mar 3, 2014

What do you think of this idea?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

bbguns

Defend the Constitution

llkoolkeg

Hairy Flaccid Member

RoadDawg

Nos nostraque Deo

Threeband

The M1 Does My Talking

DoormanTNT

Ultimate Member

Half-cocked

Senior Meatbag

MaxVO2

Ultimate Member

dblas

Past President, MSI

Bolts Rock

Living in Free America!

Biggfoot44

Ultimate Member

Vile Shadow

...

SWO Daddy

Ultimate Member

NY Transplant

Wabbit Season/Duck Season

Mark75H

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page