NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...
*rolls eyes*

Way to not even come close to answering the question.

This is the President of Irelandville I think that people should have guns because it is a way of defense and i think if people are owning property they should be able to have a way to protect their property against violators

Sincerely,The President of Irelandville

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...


How's that an attempt to restrict guns its really no different then having to prove your smart enough to drive a car, only you are now having to prove that your smart enough to own a lethal weapon.

How's that an attempt to restrict guns its really no different then having to prove your smart enough to drive a car, only you are now having to prove that your smart enough to own a lethal weapon.

Do you see in the constitution "The right to drive a automobile?" No. Do you see "The Right to bear Arms?" Yes. I emphasize the word "Right."

How's that an attempt to restrict guns its really no different then having to prove your smart enough to drive a car, only you are now having to prove that your smart enough to own a lethal weapon.That is my point precisely. Except for the fact that a car, being used ineptly, is of course, a lethal weapon.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

Actually, not too bad. North Carolina has a concealed carry law, which states that you have to complete a 20 hour course which teaches gun law and gun safety, and has two firing range sessions. I have a concealed carry permit, which you can't be approved for if you have any felony convictions or if you have had any abuse charges. I don't own a gun just now, but plan to buy another one next year to replace the one I sold.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

Why do you conservatives always leave out the part about the need for a well regulated milita? I mean that is why the admendment says the right to bear arms is so important. Maybe we should bring back the concept of a town millita and require all gun owners to be part of it, I mean if you only want the gun for protection then the training will only serve to make you better at it and might teach somepeople to be more responsible.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

Ummm...Spoff...that's rather like keeping a person from driving a car until they've learned how to drive a car. Dude, WTF?

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

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.

Now, I have a problem with this, namely in that I don't think that a well regulated millitia is four guys in a Dodge Dart with M4s. But I'll let that slide if you can at least agree that if we're not going to have a well regulated millitia, we can at least have one which is not demonstrably incompetant, and that demanding that incompetance isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

As long as there are safeguards to make sure the test is really about firearm safety and isn't some form of gun control through the back door.

Also the test should be easily accessible, and cheap so everyone can take it. Nor should it require some type of special aptitude to pass. (In other words anyone can pass it if they do the requiste studying/practice.)

Finally if you pass that test it should lead to concealed weapons permits. (As it should be.)

In fact, I think it should be mandatory for the whole populis. Everyone should take that class.

In those terms it's a good idea,

You make a very good point.

Ummm...Spoff...that's rather like keeping a person from driving a car until they've learned how to drive a car. Dude, WTF?

It only says you can't buy a gun not that you cant go borrow one from a friend and have them teach you to use it, hell they could even have drivers ed type classes to teach people how properly use a gun.

Actually, not too bad. North Carolina has a concealed carry law, which states that you have to complete a 20 hour course which teaches gun law and gun safety, and has two firing range sessions. I have a concealed carry permit, which you can't be approved for if you have any felony convictions or if you have had any abuse charges. I don't own a gun just now, but plan to buy another one next year to replace the one I sold.
And because of this, I have a pretty firm confidence that you're not going to shoot anyone without intending to and having a pretty good reason for doing so. I can understand arguements for why people should be allowed to own guns, I can't get my head around arguements that any idiot should be allowed to.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

As long as there are safeguards to make sure the test is really about firearm safety and isn't some form of gun control through the back door.

Also the test should be easily accessible, and cheap so everyone can take it. Nor should it require some type of special aptitude to pass. (In other words anyone can pass it if they do the requiste studying/practice.)

Finally if you pass that test it should lead to concealed weapons permits. (As it should be.)

In fact, I think it should be mandatory for the whole populis. Everyone should take that class.

In those terms it's a good idea,

Ummm...Spoff...that's rather like keeping a person from driving a car until they've learned how to drive a car. Dude, WTF?
Nono, you're being silly. You learn how to drive a car before you take it on the open road on your own. So, in the case of guns, you'd go to a gun range to learn how to use a gun, pass a test and then you'd be given a license or certificate, which would then allow you to purchase a gun and take it home with you.

As long as there are safeguards to make sure the test is really about firearm safety and isn't some form of gun control through the back door.

Also the test should be easily accessible, and cheap so everyone can take it. Nor should it require some type of special aptitude to pass. (In other words anyone can pass it if they do the requiste studying/practice.)

Finally if you pass that test it should lead to concealed weapons permits. (As it should be.)

In fact, I think it should be mandatory for the whole populis. Everyone should take that class.

In those terms it's a good idea,

I don't know about mandatory but I could agree to this w/ the propper safeguards.

In D.C. you are legally allowed to own a long gun w/ police approval. Guess what doesn't happen or takes years?

Ummm...Spoff...that's rather like keeping a person from driving a car until they've learned how to drive a car. Dude, WTF?
Nono, you're being silly. You learn how to drive a car before you take it on the open road on your own. So, in the case of guns, you'd go to a gun range to learn how to use a gun, pass a test and then you'd be given a license or certificate, which would then allow you to purchase a gun and take it home with you.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

Almost all accidental deaths by firearms are negligent discharges. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, either you meant the gun to fire, or you were being negligent and it did.

It is more important to know gun safety rules than be able to prove that you can aim. Making every person have to shoot at a range before a gun purchase would be impractical and a pain in the arse. FAR more people get shot by not obeying the rules below than being an "innocent bystander" and being hit.

Simply put, if everyone obeyed the following rules, accidental deaths caused by firearms would drop to almost nothing:

THESE ARE RULES YOU NEED TO KNOW & HELP OTHERS WITH

We hoped by this time that the standard rules of safe gun-handling would have
become universal throughout the world. They have been arrived at by careful
consideration over the years, and they do not need modification or addition.
We trust that all the family have them by heart in all languages, but for
those who came in late here they are again:


1. All guns are always loaded.
Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
(For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
This is the Golden Rule.
Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.
Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Those will do. We need all four and we do not need five.
It should not be necessary to belabor this issue., but life is not perfect.
!!!!

JEFF COOPER

(Former Marine Colonel & Gunsite Director).

It only says you can't buy a gun not that you cant go borrow one from a friend and have them teach you to use it, hell they could even have drivers ed type classes to teach people how properly use a gun.

They certainly could. But all Spoff said was that you can't get a gun until you've learned how to use a gun. And it would still be fairly easy to get a proficient "unofficial arms distributor" to buy you a gun, just like people do every day in the U.S. What happens when someone not quite so responsible buys another person a gun (for a small fee, of course ;) )? We get the same problem we've always had. Guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

It only says you can't buy a gun not that you cant go borrow one from a friend and have them teach you to use it, hell they could even have drivers ed type classes to teach people how properly use a gun.
That would be borrow to be taught how to use it though, not borrow and take home with you, again, just like with a car.

As long as there are safeguards to make sure the test is really about firearm safety and isn't some form of gun control through the back door.

Also the test should be easily accessible, and cheap so everyone can take it. Nor should it require some type of special aptitude to pass. (In other words anyone can pass it if they do the requiste studying/practice.)

Finally if you pass that test it should lead to concealed weapons permits. (As it should be.)

In fact, I think it should be mandatory for the whole populis. Everyone should take that class.

In those terms it's a good idea,

Well, lets not get carried away, this is pointless unless it does actually lead to people with guns being better trained. But no, you don't need to be some kind of firearm prodigy before you start, you'd take a class where they teach you how to shoot and then you'd practice shooting a bit and then take a marksmanship test. Marksmanship isn't even the biggest part of this, safety and safe handling is what I want to make sure everyone knows.

With regard to fees, obviously, again, this would be pointless if it was overly expensive to the degree that it'd put people off, but a nominal fee is gonna need to be charged (for bullets and targets, for example). Again, you need to pay for driving lessons and whatnot, so I don't think this is unreasonable. And compared to the price of a gun/car, the lesson and test cost are/would be fairly inconsequential.

Conceal and carry, I don't know if this necessarily requires more experience or whatever, but as long as it's safe then that's fine.

I don't know about mandatory but I could agree to this w/ the propper safeguards.

In D.C. you are legally allowed to own a long gun w/ police approval. Guess what doesn't happen or takes years?

No I think if everyone actually got out there and fired a few rounds and spent some time around guns, a lot of this crap would disappear. Call it aversion therapy.

Though i think that sounds liek a good idea spoff. i think a better way to do it would be that most all people have the right to freely purchase weapons, until they loose the right to do so. convicts of any nature should not be able to get a gun. seeing as how they have already proven themselves irresponsible. The only ones who shouldnt be alowed to purchase them after they come of legal age; are those who are legally autistic/have a mental disability and those who are mentally unstable... say like schizophrenic people. That seems reasonable enough to me.

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...

You want to blame Clinton for Iraq?!?! You conservatives never accept responsibility for anything you do. What a bunch of whiners.

I'll remind you it was Clinton's army that won in Iraq (that is a military built under 8 years of Clinton, Bush had no opportunity to have any impact on the military). It was Rumsfeld's short sightedness that is currently losing the peace.

While I do believe the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as a "Right," that right should also have restrictions, just like the first amendment.

Citing the example of yelling "Fire!" in a theater- this is not protected by the first amendment because it creates a dangerous situation. Similarly, owning a firearm without understanding and accepting the responsibility that comes with it creates a dangerous situation. It is not an infringement of the right to bear arms to keep guns out of the hands of idiots and lunatics, it's just common sense.

That being said, being required to demonstrate the ability to competently handle a firearm and accept the responsibility of doing so is very reasonable.

Well, lets not get carried away, this is pointless unless it does actually lead to people with guns being better trained. But no, you don't need to be some kind of firearm prodigy before you start, you'd take a class where they teach you how to shoot and then you'd practice shooting a bit and then take a marksmanship test. Marksmanship isn't even the biggest part of this, safety and safe handling is what I want to make sure everyone knows.

With regard to fees, obviously, again, this would be pointless if it was overly expensive to the degree that it'd put people off, but a nominal fee is gonna need to be charged (for bullets and targets, for example). Again, you need to pay for driving lessons and whatnot, so I don't think this is unreasonable. And compared to the price of a gun/car, the lesson and test cost are/would be fairly inconsequential.

Conceal and carry, I don't know if this necessarily requires more experience or whatever, but as long as it's safe then that's fine.


I have no problem with firearms safety. As long as it is fair, and the fees are nominal. I think people should learn about gun safety before they go out and buy one. BTW, many states in the US now have a firearms safety course before you can get a hunting license.

But I think everyone should take it.

Almost all accidental deaths by firearms are negligent discharges. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, either you meant the gun to fire, or you were being negligent and it did.

It is more important to know gun safety rules than be able to prove that you can aim. Making every person have to shoot at a range before a gun purchase would be impractical and a pain in the arse. FAR more people get shot by not obeying the rules below than being an "innocent bystander" and being hit.

Simply put, if everyone obeyed the following rules, accidental deaths caused by firearms would drop to almost nothing:Yes, absolutely. I'm not an expert on guns, I'm more than happy to let people who know about the subject decide what kind of precautions are prudent and necessary, whether knowing the right attitude towards guns is more important than knowing how to handle one or whatever.

They certainly could. But all Spoff said was that you can't get a gun until you've learned how to use a gun. And it would still be fairly easy to get a proficient "unofficial arms distributor" to buy you a gun, just like people do every day in the U.S. What happens when someone not quite so responsible buys another person a gun (for a small fee, of course ;) )? We get the same problem we've always had. Guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

and those individuals who bought the gun illegally and the one who did the transfer should be nailed to the wall.

Question to Spoffin. OK, I agreed to a test. How do you prove you've passed it? If it's an ID card, do you need to renew or is it permanent? Who keeps the records and how much info do they keep? do you approve of a record of purchases or just a "he passed the test" kind of registry?

They certainly could. But all Spoff said was that you can't get a gun until you've learned how to use a gun. And it would still be fairly easy to get a proficient "unofficial arms distributor" to buy you a gun, just like people do every day in the U.S. What happens when someone not quite so responsible buys another person a gun (for a small fee, of course ;) )? We get the same problem we've always had. Guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.Yeah, I don't know quite how to avoid that happening, although that's fairly obviously a good reason to make sure the test is as inexpensive and convieniant as possible while keeping a decent level of safety.

Let me offer this question. Let us assume that weapons technology will proceed at the same pace as other modern technologies. What do we do if in the next century hand held phasers, ala Star Trek, are invented and made affordable. I'm talking weapons that could vaporize people and leave no trace of evidence.

Will the NRA defend people's rights to bear these new, improved arms? As weaponry improves will we impose a limit on the personal killing power individuals can possess?

Though i think that sounds liek a good idea spoff. i think a better way to do it would be that most all people have the right to freely purchase weapons, until they loose the right to do so. convicts of any nature should not be able to get a gun. seeing as how they have already proven themselves irresponsible. The only ones who shouldnt be alowed to purchase them after they come of legal age; are those who are legally autistic/have a mental disability and those who are mentally unstable... say like schizophrenic people. That seems reasonable enough to me.
I don't want to get into a big discussion on the movie, but there was that thing on Bowling for Columbine, the blind guy who passed his assault weapons test. I don't get how that can be anything other than luck, really.

Nono, you're being silly. You learn how to drive a car before you take it on the open road on your own.

The key words there being "on your own." You have to drive a car to truly become proficient with it. Same principle with a gun. Quite frankly, if I ever wish to purchase a gun (which is unlikely), I'd rather not have to go asking around after a gun nut and have to deal with a possible surcharge and paying them back. Or having to deal with all the nonsense of a government course and/or proficiency test, which frustration I would no doubt have to pay for either through a fee or tax. Especially considering that I would likely hold myself to much higher standards than the government ever would, considering the quality of most of the driving courses in my country. Those government tests seem to be geared toward the lowest common denominator, which might explain why there are so many traffic accidents.

I don't want to get into a big discussion on the movie, but there was that thing on Bowling for Columbine, the blind guy who passed his assault weapons test. I don't get how that can be anything other than luck, really.

Because BFC is BS. The guy is not completely blind and is able to make out shades of light.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/blindshooter.htm

The key words there being "on your own." You have to drive a car to truly become proficient with it. Same principle with a gun. Quite frankly, if I ever wish to purchase a gun (which is unlikely), I'd rather not have to go asking around after a gun nut and have to deal with a possible surcharge and paying them back. Or having to deal with all the nonsense of a government course and/or proficiency test, which frustration I would no doubt have to pay for either through a fee or tax. Especially considering that I would likely hold myself to much higher standards than the government ever would, considering the quality of most of the driving courses in my country. Those government tests seem to be geared toward the lowest common denominator, which might explain why there are so many traffic accidents.

Yes you might be willing to do this and to be extreamly carefull, but what about those who arn't willing to be that responsible?

Question to Spoffin. OK, I agreed to a test. How do you prove you've passed it? If it's an ID card, do you need to renew or is it permanent? Who keeps the records and how much info do they keep? do you approve of a record of purchases or just a "he passed the test" kind of registry?
Hmm, good question. The short answer is, I don't know yet. Some kind of investigation to what would be the most effective way. I think that, probably, there wouldn't be a big need for renewal once you've learnt it. Maybe some way of making sure that you haven't gotten complacent safetywise after 10-15 years or whatever. An ID card, like a drivers licence, for anytime when you're concealing and carrying seems to make sense, though carrying without it isn't a BIG deal as long as you do prove that you have it. Keeping records, it'd be tied in to the background check, so info about criminal record, disabilities, also what type of gun you own if that's considered pertinent. Like I said, I'm not sure about the details, I need people who know about this stuff to help me work out the details.

Question to Spoffin. OK, I agreed to a test. How do you prove you've passed it? If it's an ID card, do you need to renew or is it permanent? Who keeps the records and how much info do they keep? do you approve of a record of purchases or just a "he passed the test" kind of registry?
Simple: a photo gun license just like a photo driver's license. Just another piece of plastic that takes up space in your wallet.

The key words there being "on your own." You have to drive a car to truly become proficient with it. Same principle with a gun. Quite frankly, if I ever wish to purchase a gun (which is unlikely), I'd rather not have to go asking around after a gun nut and have to deal with a possible surcharge and paying them back. Or having to deal with all the nonsense of a government course and/or proficiency test, which frustration I would no doubt have to pay for either through a fee or tax. Especially considering that I would likely hold myself to much higher standards than the government ever would, considering the quality of most of the driving courses in my country. Those government tests seem to be geared toward the lowest common denominator, which might explain why there are so many traffic accidents.
I certainly don't disagree, I think that probably you would hold yourself to a higher standard. But, I'm sure you agree that some driving test is better than no driving test at all, and if anyone at all could drive, it would be far worse than the current states of affairs.

If you weren't keen on asking your friendly local gun nut, then I'm thinking that the course at the rifle range would be better for you. And I'm sure that you'd rather not go through the process, but unless everyone does, is there any way you can keep out the dangerous people?

Yes you might be willing to do this and to be extreamly carefull, but what about those who arn't willing to be that responsible?

They're not going to be willing to be that responsible regardless of what Spoff is suggesting. And government courses and tests probably wouldn't help much either, if the stellar success rate of my country's driving safety programs are any indication.

Basically, what is being suggested would require that the government raise taxes as well as inconvenience people to the degree that politicians would never support it for fear of losing their reelection campaigns.

That form of gun control seems fine enough to me.

But here's a better one--no one is allowed to own firearms . . . . . .

BUT ME!

While I do believe the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as a "Right," that right should also have restrictions, just like the first amendment.

Citing the example of yelling "Fire!" in a theater- this is not protected by the first amendment because it creates a dangerous situation. Similarly, owning a firearm without understanding and accepting the responsibility that comes with it creates a dangerous situation. It is not an infringement of the right to bear arms to keep guns out of the hands of idiots and lunatics, it's just common sense.

That being said, being required to demonstrate the ability to competently handle a firearm and accept the responsibility of doing so is very reasonable.Absolutely. It should be very clear though that its not that we're saying that all gun owners are lunatics or idiots, just that the small minority who are can be very dangerous unless carefully monitered.

They're not going to be willing to be that responsible regardless of what Spoff is suggesting. And government courses and tests probably wouldn't help much either, if the stellar success rate of my country's driving safety programs are any indication.

Basically, what is being suggested would require that the government raise taxes as well as inconvenience people to the degree that politicians would never support it for fear of losing their reelection campaigns.
Is your main arguement that it will be ineffective?

Hmm, good question. The short answer is, I don't know yet. Some kind of investigation to what would be the most effective way. I think that, probably, there wouldn't be a big need for renewal once you've learnt it. Maybe some way of making sure that you haven't gotten complacent safetywise after 10-15 years or whatever. An ID card, like a drivers licence, for anytime when you're concealing and carrying seems to make sense, though carrying without it isn't a BIG deal as long as you do prove that you have it. Keeping records, it'd be tied in to the background check, so info about criminal record, disabilities, also what type of gun you own if that's considered pertinent. Like I said, I'm not sure about the details, I need people who know about this stuff to help me work out the details.

Here's what I would accept. After the appropriate test, a lifetime I.D. only revoked w/ commitment of a crime w/ firearm or abuse. Info in registry: Name, address, phone and that you passed and the date.

Anything else gets I feel gets into iffy areas and a national database/I.D. issue which I oppose. Listing the types of purchases is Defacto registration and , assuming you've passed the tests, shouldn't matter.

I certainly don't disagree, I think that probably you would hold yourself to a higher standard. But, I'm sure you agree that some driving test is better than no driving test at all, and if anyone at all could drive, it would be far worse than the current states of affairs.

If you weren't keen on asking your friendly local gun nut, then I'm thinking that the course at the rifle range would be better for you.

Or I could just set up my own range on my own property for free! Yay!

And I'm sure that you'd rather not go through the process, but unless everyone does, is there any way you can keep out the dangerous people?

Even if everyone does go through the process, there's no way you can keep out the dangerous people. Even if you could manage to make sure that every person had to go through the process (and that's damn unlikely), the dangerous people would just suffer through the course and will then be annoyed and have much better aim.

Here's what I would accept. After the appropriate test, a lifetime I.D. only revoked w/ commitment of a crime w/ firearm or abuse. Info in registry: Name, address, phone and that you passed and the date.

Anything else gets I feel gets into iffy areas and a national database/I.D. issue which I oppose. Listing the types of purchases is Defacto registration and , assuming you've passed the tests, shouldn't matter.
That seems perfectly reasonable. The only reason that I suggest purchase listing is if the skills needed to use a handgun are different from those to use a sniper rifle. If its only a safety thing, this might not be an issue, I'm just thinking maybe you should be tested on whatever you're planning to possess.

Even if everyone does go through the process, there's no way you can keep out the dangerous people. Even if you could manage to make sure that every person had to go through the process (and that's damn unlikely), the dangerous people would just suffer through the course and will then be annoyed and have much better aim.
When I say dangerous, I don't mean those who are homicidal (cos that's not where the majority of deaths occur, as I understand it), but rather those who accidentally or negligently harm others.

When I said keep out dangerous people, that wasn't really what I meant. I meant unqualified, and the process to get a gun would make them qualified.

That seems perfectly reasonable. The only reason that I suggest purchase listing is if the skills needed to use a handgun are different from those to use a sniper rifle. If its only a safety thing, this might not be an issue, I'm just thinking maybe you should be tested on whatever you're planning to possess.

Couldn't the course just be all inclusive pistol/rifle/shotgun? The safety and basics are the same w/ all of them.

Couldn't the course just be all inclusive pistol/rifle/shotgun? The safety and basics are the same w/ all of them.
Like I said, I'm not an expert with guns. If there's not much difference, then that's no problem, I'm just wanting to be sure I don't give ground too early.

I'm off now, but I'll read anything that anyone writes here and respond in the morning (afternoon)

1. Since the point of this proposal was gun safety, not restriction of ownership, asking how this will or won't keep guns out of the hands of lunatics is irrelevant. Those of you who have posted explaining rules to follow if one uses a gun, why not have an understanding of these rules be mandatory?
2. Note that the proscriptions in the Bill of Rights were intended to protect the people from government oppression (ie an army conducting raids into small towns in Massachussetts named Lexington and Concord). The whole point is that restrictions shall not be placed on the existence of militias and their ability to arm themselves. It says nothing about hunting, for instance. If you want an assault rifle, you should have to be considered part of a militia, agreed? Okay, now you must be "well-regulated," ie not a fricking wacko teenager who's going to kill a bunch of kids at your high school.
Really the most blatant abuse abuse of Second Amendment rights happens when Washington federalizes state National Guard troops. The point was that they couldn't be used against the will of the states (although the most famous instance of this, to admit black students to universities, turned out to be rather positive). Gun ownership is written into the Constitution not to protect against criminals, or to shoot deer, but to make the government wary of oppressing a city where there's a militia.
3. Constantly citing the Second Amendment seems a little hypocritical for conservatives seeing as how the Patriot Act has substantially altered the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The argument? Times have changed and so must the Bill of Rights. But apparently not in the case of gun ownership. The inviolability of the Constitution seems moot also when the fact that gay marriage (mentioned nowhere in the Constitution) is now the subject of a proposed Amendment. You might say, well we needed to change the Constitution to add the Amendment. Well then don't say it's against the rules to change the constitution to control gun ownership. After all, they've repealed one Amendment already (Prohibition). I'm not proposing repealing the Second Amendment, but keep in mind that the logical extension of a lot of conservative arguments is that to do so would be acceptable. :sniper:

1. Since the point of this proposal was gun safety, not restriction of ownership, asking how this will or won't keep guns out of the hands of lunatics is irrelevant. Those of you who have posted explaining rules to follow if one uses a gun, why not have an understanding of these rules be mandatory?
2. Note that the proscriptions in the Bill of Rights were intended to protect the people from government oppression (ie an army conducting raids into small towns in Massachussetts named Lexington and Concord). The whole point is that restrictions shall not be placed on the existence of militias and their ability to arm themselves. It says nothing about hunting, for instance. If you want an assault rifle, you should have to be considered part of a militia, agreed? Okay, now you must be "well-regulated," ie not a fricking wacko teenager who's going to kill a bunch of kids at your high school.
Really the most blatant abuse abuse of Second Amendment rights happens when Washington federalizes state National Guard troops. The point was that they couldn't be used against the will of the states (although the most famous instance of this, to admit black students to universities, turned out to be rather positive). Gun ownership is written into the Constitution not to protect against criminals, or to shoot deer, but to make the government wary of oppressing a city where there's a militia.
3. Constantly citing the Second Amendment seems a little hypocritical for conservatives seeing as how the Patriot Act has substantially altered the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The argument? Times have changed and so must the Bill of Rights. But apparently not in the case of gun ownership. The inviolability of the Constitution seems moot also when the fact that gay marriage (mentioned nowhere in the Constitution) is now the subject of a proposed Amendment. You might say, well we needed to change the Constitution to add the Amendment. Well then don't say it's against the rules to change the constitution to control gun ownership. After all, they've repealed one Amendment already (Prohibition). I'm not proposing repealing the Second Amendment, but keep in mind that the logical extension of a lot of conservative arguments is that to do so would be acceptable. :sniper:


That's why gay marriage is a "proposed" amendment.

I suppose you are pro-life.

1. Since the point of this proposal was gun safety, not restriction of ownership, asking how this will or won't keep guns out of the hands of lunatics is irrelevant. Those of you who have posted explaining rules to follow if one uses a gun, why not have an understanding of these rules be mandatory?
Lunatics aren't really the issue, its the staggeringly large amount of gun deaths caused by accident and negligence, small kids playing with daddy's gun and whatnot. This is what my main problem with the NRA is, I feel they're very gung-ho, whereas what a serious National Rifle Association should be about is safety and making sure that their hobby doesn't endanger anyone unnecessarily. You wouldn't see the same kind of attitude from a skiing club.

While this is NOT my definite personal opinion on gun control, let me make an analogy:

Perhaps it should work like learning karate; the student (gun owner) should require discipline and restraint so as to know when not to attack

While this is NOT my definite personal opinion on gun control, let me make an analogy:

Perhaps it should work like learning karate; the student (gun owner) should require discipline and restraint so as to know when not to attack
That seems like a very appropriate analogy.

Lunatics aren't really the issue, its the staggeringly large amount of gun deaths caused by accident and negligence, small kids playing with daddy's gun and whatnot. This is what my main problem with the NRA is, I feel they're very gung-ho, whereas what a serious National Rifle Association should be about is safety and making sure that their hobby doesn't endanger anyone unnecessarily. You wouldn't see the same kind of attitude from a skiing club.

I'm willing to bet that NRA members are much more careful with their guns than non-members.

Spoffin, I suggest you go to the range and shoot some skeet or something. It's a rush.

Here's how it works in Canada and especially the Quebec province.Dont know for other province because I dont live there.Its also important to bear in mind that in Canada the vast majority of weapons officially purchased are for hunting only and not for self-defense we have the police for that ;)

So you're 16 the mandatory age to own a gun in Canada and you want to go hunting with your daddy.Well you have to pass a test concerning the use of guns and safety with it.The test is 25$ IIRC and you don't need a compulsory course to pass it.If you pass the test you'll be delivered an unrestricted weapon permit.I.e. hunting weapons which are semi-automatic or single-shot and have a maximum of 5 bullets in clips or inside the weapon.Now in the Quebec province once you have that you apply for your hunting permit depending on what you want to hunt and say its for small game it cost something like 15$.So you don't have a weapon yet but you do have your hunting permit and the right to own a gun for 40$ I don't think that's expensive nor is it difficult to obtain.

Now if you want a pistol you have to have passed the course on using guns and safety and the first test then you have to pass another test which include a session at a gun range with an approved instructor.Once you have that you can have your restricted weapon permit.I.e. purchasing a pistol that has a maximum capacity of 10 rounds.Fully automatic weapons are totally banned in Canada.

So I don't how is that restrictive or infringe on any rights its just there to ensure that you know how to correctly use your guns and keep a certain control on who is buying these weapons.Just for the sake of not having a recedivist murderer buy a pistol in total lawfulness.

Why do you conservatives always leave out the part about the need for a well regulated milita? I mean that is why the admendment says the right to bear arms is so important. Maybe we should bring back the concept of a town millita and require all gun owners to be part of it, I mean if you only want the gun for protection then the training will only serve to make you better at it and might teach somepeople to be more responsible.
Militia was defined as healthy males over the age of 17. I assume females would qualify now as well.

Here's how it works in Canada and especially the Quebec province.Dont know for other province because I dont live there.Its also important to bear in mind that in Canada the vast majority of weapons officially purchased are for hunting only and not for self-defense we have the police for that ;)

So you're 16 the mandatory age to own a gun in Canada and you want to go hunting with your daddy.Well you have to pass a test concerning the use of guns and safety with it.The test is 25$ IIRC and you don't need a compulsory course to pass it.If you pass the test you'll be delivered an unrestricted weapon permit.I.e. hunting weapons which are semi-automatic or single-shot and have a maximum of 5 bullets in clips or inside the weapon.Now in the Quebec province once you have that you apply for your hunting permit depending on what you want to hunt and say its for small game it cost something like 15$.So you don't have a weapon yet but you do have your hunting permit and the right to own a gun for 40$ I don't think that's expensive nor is it difficult to obtain.

Now if you want a pistol you have to have passed the course on using guns and safety and the first test then you have to pass another test which include a session at a gun range with an approved instructor.Once you have that you can have your restricted weapon permit.I.e. purchasing a pistol that has a maximum capacity of 10 rounds.Fully automatic weapons are totally banned in Canada.

So I don't how is that restrictive or infringe on any rights its just there to ensure that you know how to correctly use your guns and keep a certain control on who is buying these weapons.Just for the sake of not having a recedivist murderer buy a pistol in total lawfulness.
Full auto's are banned in the US unless you have a class III weapons license which are a complete bitch to qualify for.

bump

Lunatics aren't really the issue, its the staggeringly large amount of gun deaths caused by accident and negligence, small kids playing with daddy's gun and whatnot. This is what my main problem with the NRA is, I feel they're very gung-ho, whereas what a serious National Rifle Association should be about is safety and making sure that their hobby doesn't endanger anyone unnecessarily. You wouldn't see the same kind of attitude from a skiing club.

Sorry, but that's just off target. The NRA operates many safety and education courses (http://www.nrahq.org/education/) in addition to the the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/index.asp) gun safety program for young children.

I've been through several shooter education and safety programs: NRA, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department hunter education, and Boy Scouts of America. I'll note that both the TPWD and BSA programs were operated under NRA qualified instructors, in addition to the obvious NRA courses.

(The Force Majeure had it correct above, I'd just like to re-enforce that.)

When I say dangerous, I don't mean those who are homicidal (cos that's not where the majority of deaths occur, as I understand it), but rather those who accidentally or negligently harm others.
And this is why listening to the media rots your brain. There is one statistic that American Gun Control advocates have latched onto. It is put out by the FBI each year. The statistic tells the number of gun deaths from aquaintences. However, aquaintences ranges from family, to friends, to other drug dealers and/or gang members. There are actually very few friendly fire gun deaths, at least in the U.S.

No way. In America, the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a right, just like voting. What you propose is exactly equivalent to calling for an intelligence test before someone is allowed to vote.

And this is why listening to the media rots your brain. There is one statistic that American Gun Control advocates have latched onto. It is put out by the FBI each year. The statistic tells the number of gun deaths from aquaintences. However, aquaintences ranges from family, to friends, to other drug dealers and/or gang members. There are actually very few friendly fire gun deaths, at least in the U.S.

Or like the one involving gun deaths of children, with children being defined as up to 24 yrs old.

The Empire of Presidency does not allow its citizens the right to bear any type of arms. This ensures complete controll over the nation without any hassel.

Do you see in the constitution "The right to drive a automobile?" No. Do you see "The Right to bear Arms?" Yes. I emphasize the word "Right."

It says the right to keep and bear Arms, but it doesn't say firearms. Why not just let people carry swords and daggers?

The 2nd Amendment also says: 'A well regulated Militia,' and one of the ways a militia is regulated is by determining the types of amrs they carry and whther or not someone in the militia is qualified to use it. If you join the army, and can't shoot, then you'll probably be assigned to something besides infantry. Sorry.

To the original post of this thread, that's exactly how we test for people to get a concealed carry permit in the state of Texas and the state of Florida. You have to qualify on the shooting range and have to take classes to ensure you know the law about when deadly force is authorized. This ensures that people who are exercising their rights can do so safely and effectively.

It says the right to keep and bear Arms, but it doesn't say firearms. Why not just let people carry swords and daggers?

The 2nd Amendment also says: 'A well regulated Militia,' and one of the ways a militia is regulated is by determining the types of amrs they carry and whther or not someone in the militia is qualified to use it. If you join the army, and can't shoot, then you'll probably be assigned to something besides infantry. Sorry.



And the first amendment says nothing about the internet so offline w/ you!

Regulated in 18th century usage meant equipped.
Militia is defined as every man( now also women) over 17 capable of carrying arms. It has nothing to do w/ organization by the gov't.

And the first amendment says nothing about the internet so offline w/ you!

Regulated in 18th century usage meant equipped.
Militia is defined as every man( now also women) over 17 capable of carrying arms. It has nothing to do w/ organization by the gov't.

Uh, in a government by the people and for the people, then the Militia would definitely be part of the government.

If regulated meant equipped, then why isn't everyone required to own the same kind of rifle? In a situation where a militia was needed (say, foreign invasion) wouldn't everyone having the same weapon be beneficial?

Uh, in a government by the people and for the people, then the Militia would definitely be part of the government.

If regulated meant equipped, then why isn't everyone required to own the same kind of rifle? In a situation where a militia was needed (say, foreign invasion) wouldn't everyone having the same weapon be beneficial?

Here we go again. The militia is not regular army and is therefore not organized by the gov't.

It is the concept of the citizen militia to be used for the defense of the nation from threats internally and externally and that includes tyranny from the gov't. The people equip themselves .

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"A militia are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution

I’m all for the training bit. I started shooting my dads 22 when I was barely taller than it. I never once pointed a loaded gun at something I had no intention of hitting. With unloaded guns, other than during transport/maintenance/getting ready to fire/looking to buy, well you have to have it pointing somewhere. I haven't "played" with any real gun ever. That's what fake guns are for. And yet the production numbers of fake guns is decreasing while, well I haven’t seen any figures of any real guns.

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...


ignorance..

Here we go again. The militia is not regular army and is therefore not organized by the gov't.

It is the concept of the citizen militia to be used for the defense of the nation from threats internally and externally and that includes tyranny from the gov't. The people equip themselves .

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"A militia are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution


I'll be blunt, I cannot dispute any of that and I agree with the concept wholeheartedly. Machiavelli said basically the same thing, that a state with armed and free citizen soldiers would be the most stable, most free, and most difficult to conquer.

However, in a country where 'Do Not Enter' signs are posted on entrance ramps, where there are tags on hair dryers to remind people not to use them in the bath tub and that more than half can't name the capital of the state they live in, don't you think a little education on which way to point the thing be mandatory?

Don't even say something like "Well, back before the NRA became just a lobby group..."

I'll be blunt, I cannot dispute any of that and I agree with the concept wholeheartedly. Machiavelli said basically the same thing, that a state with armed and free citizen soldiers would be the most stable, most free, and most difficult to conquer.

However, in a country where 'Do Not Enter' signs are posted on entrance ramps, where there are tags on hair dryers to remind people not to use them in the bath tub and that more than half can't name the capital of the state they live in, don't you think a little education on which way to point the thing be mandatory?

Don't even say something like "Well, back before the NRA became just a lobby group..."

Go to the first few posts. While I'm not an advocate of mandatory safety licenses. If one had to be established I stated what I would feel comfortable in accepting.

I do feel the education system in the country needs to be overhauled. Throwing in mandatory gun-safety classes at school (and not just "guns 'r bad) wouldn't be a bad idea either. The hairdryer and entrance ramp thing I also agree w/. Let's thank the trial lawyers for that.

and BTW, the NRA isn't "just a lobby group". They promote education, safety , hunting, competitions, etc.

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=1353

Go to the first few posts. While I'm not an advocate of mandatory safety licenses. If one had to be established I stated what I would feel comfortable in accepting.

I do feel the education system in the country needs to be overhauled. Throwing in mandatory gun-safety classes at school (and not just "guns 'r bad) wouldn't be a bad idea either.

That's all I'm sayin'. A little education would go a long way.

and BTW, the NRA isn't "just a lobby group". They promote education, safety , hunting, competitions, etc.

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=1353

Yea, but I don't think they've been doing a good job of it lately.

That's all I'm sayin'. A little education would go a long way.



Yea, but I don't think they've been doing a good job of it lately.

One of the biggest problems is how the NRA has been portrayed in the media as gun-toting, redneck, paranoid, survivalist types. Someone hears about a youth training/safety course and they imagine camouflaged NRA members putting highpowered fully auto rifles in the hands of ten year olds and sending them out to shoot up a school.

I felt the same way about the NRA until a measure was introduced in Illinois that would have effectively banned everything but singleshot .22's ,20 guage and .410 shotguns. Then I started reading up on them (not only their site but the sites of their opponents like Handgun Control Inc).

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?


Modify that:
Same as Driving test.

To use a firearm legally must pass test.
First take ten sign test like driving test but replace signs with safety rules for using guns.
Then must prove you can use it safely like the driving test.

And the same price for a driving test/ID will be the Gun test.

I mean few people don't drive so it must be okay with that type of regulation.

Schools might require a gun safety class like driver's education class type thing. But all in all its great.

"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." -exact text of the second amendment

What do you think that the first half of the sentence is for? Too make it pretty? No, if the founders wanted to insure that your "right" to buy sniper rifles, AK 47s, tanks, morters and nuclear weapons was never infringed then they would not have made sure to include that sentence. The government needs to protect peoples lives and property and to this end it needs to keep arms out of the hands of criminals and it needs to insure that nobody with malevolent intent, which I define as the desire to kill people, can aquire firearms. Very few liberals actually want to ban all guns.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.
Did you even read his post? He's not proposing to ban guns.

Or are you worried that you could not pass a gun proficiency test?

"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." -exact text of the second amendment

What do you think that the first half of the sentence is for? Too make it pretty? No, if the founders wanted to insure that your "right" to buy sniper rifles, AK 47s, tanks, morters and nuclear weapons was never infringed then they would not have made sure to include that sentence. The government needs to protect peoples lives and property and to this end it needs to keep arms out of the hands of criminals and it needs to insure that nobody with malevolent intent, which I define as the desire to kill people, can aquire firearms. Very few liberals actually want to ban all guns.


Actually that's a very good view on it, but it goes a little far abour the nuclear weapons lol. However there is a very hard to see line between benevolent and malevolent when it comes to weapons. If someone invades your home you CAN shoot him, but your not supposed to kill, only de-arm the person. There is a line that people see and the line is different for everyone on just how far weapons should be allowed to be in the hands of the people. Something like everyone has nukes, but no one is allowed to use them should be more of a policy. Everyone has a gun (non-lethal preferably), but no one is allowed to use them, and those which have mental problems or criminal records will be unable to use them. Its a deterrent to all criminals to, when every outstanding citizen has a gun and you have nothing would you REALLY want to do something bad, and those who are criminals need to get searched every once in awhile to just show that they have no gun on them or another weapon while the priest walking down the street carries an Uzi and walks right past the guards.

(I'm not saying a man of the faith should carry an Uzi or something or an AK-47, but something to protect themselves like the rest of the public if they feel they need to)

taking away our guns means taking away our freedom we always win because of guns :sniper:

[QUOTE=Jazzy world]taking away our guns means taking away our freedom we always win because of guns would we win the world war without guns no wot r u thinking tring to take away guns i say no that will do us no good :sniper: :mp5:

While this is NOT my definite personal opinion on gun control, let me make an analogy:

Perhaps it should work like learning karate; the student (gun owner) should require discipline and restraint so as to know when not to attack

That's partly why I advocate appropriate gun education as a part of a child's schooling. Education would be much more effective in getting rid of accidental shootings, because generally such events occur because of the ignorance of the shooter. That and gun owners storing their guns safely would probably be the best way to prevent accidental shootings. Education, education, education. It does a body good.

"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." -exact text of the second amendment

What do you think that the first half of the sentence is for? Too make it pretty? No, if the founders wanted to insure that your "right" to buy sniper rifles, AK 47s, tanks, morters and nuclear weapons was never infringed then they would not have made sure to include that sentence. The government needs to protect peoples lives and property and to this end it needs to keep arms out of the hands of criminals and it needs to insure that nobody with malevolent intent, which I define as the desire to kill people, can aquire firearms. Very few liberals actually want to ban all guns.

But too many politicians do.

Ok let's put it into modern language.

"A well equipped civilian populace is necessary for a free country therefore the right to own and use firearms shall not be infringed."

The first part of the sentance is not a how, it's a why describing why the ownership of arms is needed in a free society.

The Supreme Court determined in 1938 that "arms" is defined as any small arms w/ a military purpose therefore the populace DOES have the right to "sniper rifles" and AK-47's but not tanks or nukes. I love when that slippery slope is used.

The Supreme Court has also determined that the police are not obligated to protect you from crime. There are already laws on the books saying criminals shouldn't have guns but, since they are criminals, they tend not to follow those. How do you propose the Gov't "insures" guns are kept out of the hands of those w/ "malevolent intent"?

One of the biggest problems is how the NRA has been portrayed in the media as gun-toting, redneck, paranoid, survivalist types. Someone hears about a youth training/safety course and they imagine camouflaged NRA members putting highpowered fully auto rifles in the hands of ten year olds and sending them out to shoot up a school.

I felt the same way about the NRA until a measure was introduced in Illinois that would have effectively banned everything but singleshot .22's ,20 guage and .410 shotguns. Then I started reading up on them (not only their site but the sites of their opponents like Handgun Control Inc).
Yeah, but you gotta wonder, if that is the conventional wisdom as to how the organisation is, then clearly their safety and education campaigns aren't going that well.

There are already laws on the books saying criminals shouldn't have guns but, since they are criminals, they tend not to follow those. How do you propose the Gov't "insures" guns are kept out of the hands of those w/ "malevolent intent"?
Malevolent intent is kinda drifting off topic here. I'm talking mainly about protecting against accidents.

And this is why listening to the media rots your brain. There is one statistic that American Gun Control advocates have latched onto. It is put out by the FBI each year. The statistic tells the number of gun deaths from aquaintences. However, aquaintences ranges from family, to friends, to other drug dealers and/or gang members. There are actually very few friendly fire gun deaths, at least in the U.S.
Do you have any specific stats to prove this?

No way. In America, the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a right, just like voting. What you propose is exactly equivalent to calling for an intelligence test before someone is allowed to vote.
Yes, but voting is conditioned upon registration. Freedom of expression doesn't extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Its a minor infringement (which most people on this thread, including some gun owners, are prepared to accept) in order to ensure public safety.

I do feel the education system in the country needs to be overhauled. Throwing in mandatory gun-safety classes at school (and not just "guns 'r bad) wouldn't be a bad idea either. The hairdryer and entrance ramp thing I also agree w/. Let's thank the trial lawyers for that.
Fair enough. And the same for drugs education and sex education then (and not just "drugs 'r bad" and "sex is bad")

Yeah, but you gotta wonder, if that is the conventional wisdom as to how the organisation is, then clearly their safety and education campaigns aren't going that well.

They could use better PR people, no arguement there. From what I've read on their S & E campaigns though, the ones that use ( which are more common that the is normally stated in the media) them fair quite well. I would like to see the programs brought more out into the open (mainstream) than localities individually picking them up, but if they're helping that way, I'm for it.

Fair enough. And the same for drugs education and sex education then (and not just "drugs 'r bad" and "sex is bad")

Also agreed. Sex ed should be about the biology and safety (including but not exclusively abstinence). IMO I would like to see a Denmark style drug policy ("Hard"drugs registered, "Soft" few if any restrictions) w/ harsh punishments for abusers that cause crimes (stealing, killing, DUI's etc.),and accurate info available in schools. Very similar to my opinions on firearms.

My opologies for the "malevolent" drift but the misrepresentation of the 2nd amend. and the subjective "gov't insuring" thing (i.e. banning) tends to set me off.

I think I'll speak up with a northern Canadian (BC) perspective...

Twenty years (or so) ago, when I was in grade 10, my school offered a course on gun safety and hunting. It wasn't a mandatory course and since I was on the academic route, I didn't take it, but a lot of classmates did.

The course focused on the safe use of rifles and shotguns, and parental permission and involvement was required. After all, the school was not about to allow kids to bring firearms to school with them! Theory was done in a class room setting, practice was done as 'field trips' to the teacher's back yard where he had set up a practice range. Kids whose parents could not provide a firearm could use the teacher's.

When you were finished, you got real-life school course credits, a permit to own firearms, and a hunting license for the season.

Oh yeah, kids were also taught to set up their own trap lines.

Also agreed. Sex ed should be about the biology and safety (including but not exclusively abstinence). IMO I would like to see a Denmark style drug policy ("Hard"drugs registered, "Soft" few if any restrictions) w/ harsh punishments for abusers that cause crimes (stealing, killing, DUI's etc.),and accurate info available in schools. Very similar to my opinions on firearms.

My opologies for the "malevolent" drift but the misrepresentation of the 2nd amend. and the subjective "gov't insuring" thing (i.e. banning) tends to set me off.
No, its fine, but this isn't something that I can sell as keeping guns out of the hands of those who wish to do harm with them. Its about making sure that gun owners are responsible and safe to themselves and others.

I think I'll speak up with a northern Canadian (BC) perspective...

Twenty years (or so) ago, when I was in grade 10, my school offered a course on gun safety and hunting. It wasn't a mandatory course and since I was on the academic route, I didn't take it, but a lot of classmates did.

The course focused on the safe use of rifles and shotguns, and parental permission and involvement was required. After all, the school was not about to allow kids to bring firearms to school with them! Theory was done in a class room setting, practice was done as 'field trips' to the teacher's back yard where he had set up a practice range. Kids whose parents could not provide a firearm could use the teacher's.

When you were finished, you got real-life school course credits, a permit to own firearms, and a hunting license for the season.

Oh yeah, kids were also taught to set up their own trap lines.Now, even though I'm generally opposed to guns, this does seem acceptable overall. There are vocational skills involved there, there are plenty of legit jobs that are gonna need firearm experience, and the structure of the course does have a reasonable attitude towards safety and whatnot.

Now, even though I'm generally opposed to guns, this does seem acceptable overall. There are vocational skills involved there, there are plenty of legit jobs that are gonna need firearm experience, and the structure of the course does have a reasonable attitude towards safety and whatnot.

These are the kinds of things that I find completely acceptable. However, In the US, schools and guns = baaaaad. There have been several attempts at things like this and many have been canceled due to controversy. That lovely Columbine thing again, fueled by that quack Moore. One kid was even suspended for wearing a shirt stating he had attended an NRA sponsored camp. The university I attended canceled their shooting program. The secretary told me "If someone wants to learn to shoot guns, they shouldn't do it at a university."

Of course it's not always completely true:

http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1111343,00.html

If people want to have guns - why not just draft them? And then you'll have qualified drill sargeants abusing them until they learn to look after the things properly.

If people want to have guns - why not just draft them? And then you'll have qualified drill sargeants abusing them until they learn to look after the things properly.

So no one can constest the will of the state?

I hate you Liberals.

First you want to take our guns. Ok, that's understandable. Then you want to severly cut down our Armec Forces (Thank you Clinton, because of you, we're streched out in Iraq. Go DEMOCRATS!)

Seriously, what do you liberals want? A totally gun free state?

Thank god America is a conservative nation...

We hate you too.

Seriously, what do you want? Blind hicks weilding grenade launchers.

If people want to have guns - why not just draft them? And then you'll have qualified drill sargeants abusing them until they learn to look after the things properly.

We'd have a military of over 100 million people and then you'ld probably gripe about how much the U.S spends on its' military.

What do you think that the first half of the sentence is for? Too make it pretty? No, if the founders wanted to insure that your "right" to buy sniper rifles, AK 47s, tanks, morters and nuclear weapons was never infringed then they would not have made sure to include that sentence. The government needs to protect peoples lives and property and to this end it needs to keep arms out of the hands of criminals and it needs to insure that nobody with malevolent intent, which I define as the desire to kill people, can aquire firearms. Very few liberals actually want to ban all guns.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

Fine, you can have my 30 caliber, bench sighted and scoped and capable of hitting a man sized target at 1000 yards 'sniper rifle'. Just let me keep my 30 caliber bench sighted and scoped and capable of hitting a man sized target at 1000 yards 'deer rifle'. Same thing with the magazine fed pistol gripped semiautomatic 'assault rifle'. I'll just keep the magazine fed pistol gripped semiautomatic 'match target rifle'. You're talking about labels that don't mean that much.

Tanks? Look around you, scooter. The Hummer and H2 are like the hottest selling SUV's in the country.

Nuclear weapons? OK, legalize them. Let anyone who can afford one, buy one. Since the cheapest one is about $5 BILLION, I'll know that if I try and screw will Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I'll be in big trouble.

A machine gun in the hands of an honest person is no threat to anyone, a slingshot in the hands of a malcontent is a danger to all.

But, really, banned guns is a treatment of the symptom, not the cause. The cause of most violent crime in this country comes basically from two sources: the drug war and domestic violence. Fix the source of the problem and the 'gun problem' will fix itself.

These are the kinds of things that I find completely acceptable. However, In the US, schools and guns = baaaaad. There have been several attempts at things like this and many have been canceled due to controversy. That lovely Columbine thing again, fueled by that quack Moore. One kid was even suspended for wearing a shirt stating he had attended an NRA sponsored camp. The university I attended canceled their shooting program. The secretary told me "If someone wants to learn to shoot guns, they shouldn't do it at a university."

Of course it's not always completely true:

http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1111343,00.html
Well, I'm personally a big fan of Bowling for Columbine, and I'm probably on the side of the arguement against giving kids guns and teaching them how to accurately hit things. I am however completely opposed to the censorship thing.

Actually that's a very good view on it, but it goes a little far abour the nuclear weapons lol. However there is a very hard to see line between benevolent and malevolent when it comes to weapons. If someone invades your home you CAN shoot him, but your not supposed to kill, only de-arm the person.
Actually most cops tell you to shoot to kill if he's on your property and has a weapon. This is because otherwise with the wonderful civil judicial system we have in this country and the idiot juries, he can sue your ass and win if you injure him.

Actually most cops tell you to shoot to kill if he's on your property and has a weapon. This is because otherwise with the wonderful civil judicial system we have in this country and the idiot juries, he can sue your ass and win if you injure him.
I don't think that that's the reason y-know. For one thing, the family can still sue for wrongful death if you act hastily anyway.

I don't think that that's the reason y-know. For one thing, the family can still sue for wrongful death if you act hastily anyway.
True, but the guy's not there to make up some bullshit about what he "really" did. Since it's unlikely that the perpatrator is a cute little girl, without the person involved actually there the jury is much less likely to award the family the money. Especially when the homeowners are the only ones who have a story about what went on.

Yes, but voting is conditioned upon registration. Freedom of expression doesn't extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Its a minor infringement (which most people on this thread, including some gun owners, are prepared to accept) in order to ensure public safety.
"shall not be infringed." Not "shall be infringed upon slightly" but "shall not be infringed."

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?
Sure, and maybe we sould impose similar controls on the right to vote...

Oh, but then it would not really be a right, would it.

"shall not be infringed." Not "shall be infringed upon slightly" but "shall not be infringed."
Yeah, even though you've shown no evidence that you've read my arguement, I'll repeat it again.

Your point is from Amendment II

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.

Allow me to compare this to Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, this too says that no abridgement of free expression etc etc etc, but still, there are judged to be behaviours which are under free speech but are not legal. Mailing threatening letters, for example. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Conspiracy to commit illegal acts. Unless you think all of these should be legal, then I think you'll have to agree that your reading of the Constitution is simply incorrect with regards to real life laws, and given that you are probably not a Constitutional scholar or a supreme court justice, I'm more inclined to believe that you're wrong than that the people who make and change the laws are.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

Dumbass, if Thomas Jefferson knew that in the future there would be semi-auto weapons I dont think he wouldve allowed guns, and also if you read the right to bear arms, you might have noticed the part that says "for a stronger militia" those days are over, now the army supplies weapons, I hate your type.

Sure, and maybe we sould impose similar controls on the right to vote...

Oh, but then it would not really be a right, would it.
Well, there are analogous controls on the right to vote. You have to register as a voter. This ensures that you don't vote multiple times. Certain pertinant details about your life need to be known before it can be decided whether or not you're allowed to vote, whether or not you're a convict for example. These restrictions are there to ensure that the aim of whatever right in question is not lost through rigorous adherance to the letter of the law. The aim of bearing arms is to ensure the safety and security of the free state. The state is neither secure nor free unless people know how to use these arms and don't accidentally kill others.

Dumbass, if Thomas Jefferson knew that in the future there would be semi-auto weapons I dont think he wouldve allowed guns, and also if you read the right to bear arms, you might have noticed the part that says "for a stronger militia" those days are over, now the army supplies weapons, I hate your type.
We pretty much all agree that he's wrong, but please don't flame.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.
Yeah, it gives the right to bear arms. But a few questions. One, does it ever say that "The right to bear unlegistlated arms" Or better yet, does it even say "firearms" Hell, I could give everyone swords, take away guns, and not be screwing with the 2nd amendment. Or better yet, it doesn't say "right to own ammo" Bullets are now illegal, be a real hunter, use a bow.

Let me offer this question. Let us assume that weapons technology will proceed at the same pace as other modern technologies. What do we do if in the next century hand held phasers, ala Star Trek, are invented and made affordable. I'm talking weapons that could vaporize people and leave no trace of evidence.

Will the NRA defend people's rights to bear these new, improved arms? As weaponry improves will we impose a limit on the personal killing power individuals can possess?
The NRA has already 'defended' people rights to own grenade launchers, whats to stop them? The NRA will not stop until every baby is born with a Nuclear warhead clenched in his tiny little hands.

No way. In America, the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a right, just like voting. What you propose is exactly equivalent to calling for an intelligence test before someone is allowed to vote.
Doesn't florida have a thing where you're supposed to check to say weither or not your retarded before you can vote?

I have a interesting question.... If I were to deem say....George W. Bush as a threat to America, and led a rag-tag 'militia' to Washington DC to shoot him... would I be able to call on the 2nd Amendment? Btw, the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make inforcing martial law a very tricky prospect.

Well, I'm from the SouthEastern United States of America, and since most of you know all about how us "ignorant hillbillies" just love guns, I thought I might try to discuss this issue with all of you.

Guns are NOT bad. They can be used for self-defense quite effectively, as I'm sure all of you know. The only people I've EVER seen have problems handling a gun are liberals(no insult meant towards any of you liberals out there).

I'm only fifteen years of age, and I can almost guarantee you that I can operate a semi-automatic assault rifle (AR-15 to be exact) just as good as some men and women in our Armed Forces, if not better, and I haven't been trained by any professionals at all. And the only time I get to use the damn thing is when I visit my cousin's house.

My point is that as long as people know how to operate a gun, they should be allowed to use it. END OF STORY. Any majorly negligent usage of that firearm would result in immediate revocation of their gun license and all of their firearms. The age limit for owning a firearm should be raised to twenty years of age, and special schools could possibly offer classes to seniors in high school dealing with Gun Laws, their state's CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) Laws, and how to properly stand and aim when firing a gun.

I learn very fastly when it comes to guns, so I wouldn't know the general amount of time it would take someone to learn how to fire a handgun, bolt-action rifle, semi-auto rifle, and thus forward, but it shouldn't take longer than two days for them to be able to knock a Coke can off a post a 25-30 yards with a handgun, and around 150 with an accurate semi-auto rifle (I hit one at 250 yards the first time I used an AR-15, so 150 shouldn't be TOO hard).

I have a interesting question.... If I were to deem say....George W. Bush as a threat to America, and led a rag-tag 'militia' to Washington DC to shoot him... would I be able to call on the 2nd Amendment? Btw, the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make inforcing martial law a very tricky prospect.
You know Leetonia, you're the kind of Liberal that gives other Liberals a horrible reputation. Let me guess, you're from Seattle?

My point is that as long as people know how to operate a gun, they should be allowed to use it. END OF STORY. Any majorly negligent usage of that firearm would result in immediate revocation of their gun license and all of their firearms. The age limit for owning a firearm should be raised to twenty years of age, and special schools could possibly offer classes to seniors in high school dealing with Gun Laws, their state's CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) Laws, and how to properly stand and aim when firing a gun.
I think that people knowing how to operate a gun safely should be the defining criteria as to whether or not you can use it. My only difference is that it would make more sense if people had to prove they were competant before they could get a gun, rather than prove they were incompetant before it gets taken away.

I think that people knowing how to operate a gun safely should be the defining criteria as to whether or not you can use it. My only difference is that it would make more sense if people had to prove they were competant before they could get a gun, rather than prove they were incompetant before it gets taken away.
Well, I suppose you're correct there. How about those classes being necessary to get a license to own a gun(which pretty much means this thread made one big loop since we're back to talking about what you suggested on page two)?

You know Leetonia, you're the kind of Liberal that gives other Liberals a horrible reputation. Let me guess, you're from Seattle?
Hey. Don't you be flame-baiting either.

Well, I suppose you're correct there. How about those classes being necessary to get a license to own a gun(which pretty much means this thread made one big loop since we're back to talking about what you suggested on page two)?
That's what I think is the most sensible option.

I mean, really, can you expect anyone to be able to defend themselves with a gun if they can't pass a basic safety and aptitude test in a classroom?

Sorry, it was too tempting, I apologize to everyone here from Seattle.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

There's a right to free speech and the right to an attorney too, but those are also infringed, dummy. It's like the liscense to drive a car.
Besides, why do you need an AK?

That's what I think is the most sensible option.

I mean, really, can you expect anyone to be able to defend themselves with a gun if they can't pass a basic safety and aptitude test in a classroom?
Nope, because they're most likely still afraid of guns if they haven't learned how to use them, and that leads to them not being able to operate the firearms very efficiently.

All civilians should be allowed training somewhat the equivalent of the Armed Force's firearm training, but should not be taught unnecessary tactics that are included in a soldier's training.

In either case, I'll be a well-trained soldier. I'm going to enlist in the Marine Corps. My father was a scout sniper in the Corps for four to five years, and I want to be in the Marine Corps like he was, although I would prefer standard infantry.

There's a right to free speech and the right to an attorney too, but those are also infringed, dummy. It's like the liscense to drive a car.
Besides, why do you need an AK?
Anyone who would even WANT to waste their money on a Kalashnikov is ignorant in my book. They are horrible guns that are not meant for anything other than show, in my opinion. The only reason they are so popular is their price.

Well, I'm from the SouthEastern United States of America, and since most of you know all about how us "ignorant hillbillies" just love guns, I thought I might try to discuss this issue with all of you.

Guns are NOT bad. They can be used for self-defense quite effectively, as I'm sure all of you know. The only people I've EVER seen have problems handling a gun are liberals(no insult meant towards any of you liberals out there).

I'm only fifteen years of age, and I can almost guarantee you that I can operate a semi-automatic assault rifle (AR-15 to be exact) just as good as some men and women in our Armed Forces, if not better, and I haven't been trained by any professionals at all. And the only time I get to use the damn thing is when I visit my cousin's house.

Ok. Point one. Aren't guns good self defense... against guns? Otherwise, a knife or a bow or even your own fists are just perfect.
Secondly, WHY do you need to know how to use a semi-automatic?
Thirdly, the point was not that guns should be outlawed... Because some people actually HUNT ANIMALS FOR SPORT rather that kill other people for sport... But that it should be required that those with guns should be able to use them. Point made.
And just so you know, I'm very liberal and I know how to use a gun just fine, thanks.

Anyone who would even WANT to waste their money on a Kalashnikov is ignorant in my book. They are horrible guns that are not meant for anything other than show, in my opinion. The only reason they are so popular is their price.
Also the durability compared to an M16.

Nope, because they're most likely still afraid of guns if they haven't learned how to use them, and that leads to them not being able to operate the firearms very efficiently.
Exactly.

The only reason I continue to believe that guns should be legal for americans (who are mostly bad people) is that these bad people have put a bad government in power and the decent people should have something to shoot through the door with when the knock-in-the-night arrives.

Okay, that part was pretty much me just rambling, Mirivia.

Counterpoint One: So you're saying that a person with no training in martial arts or anyting of the sort should try to fight three thugs with knives using their bare hands?

Counterpoint Two: Ever heard of missing a target, Mirivia? And when that target is someone coming at you with a deadly weapon, you need to be able to fire another shot quickly.

Counterpoint Three: I know that. I went on a youth deer hunt saturday. If you read down below that, i believe i said that people who do not know how to use guns shouldnt be allowed to use guns, but those that are, should be.

And I simply stated tht all of the people I know that don't know how to use guns are Liberals. I wasn't implying that ALL Liberals don't know how to use guns, because I don't know every single Liberal in this world and don't pretend I do.

The only reason I continue to believe that guns should be legal for americans (who are mostly bad people) is that these bad people have put a bad government in power and the decent people should have something to shoot through the door with when the knock-in-the-night arrives.
THE GOVERNMENT (Bush, at least, because Kerry would have banned all guns from America even if someone in the UN bathroom suggested it) IS THE REASON WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS!! WHY IN HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO CREATE OPPOSITION BY LETTING US HAVE GUNS IF THEY WANTED TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?!

Okay, that part was pretty much me just rambling, Mirivia.

Counterpoint One: So you're saying that a person with no training in martial arts or anyting of the sort should try to fight three thugs with knives using their bare hands?

Counterpoint Two: Ever heard of missing a target, Mirivia? And when that target is someone coming at you with a deadly weapon, you need to be able to fire another shot quickly.

Okay, but now look at this: Are the martial arts the only form of fighting? There's a such thing as natural reaction... And you COULD run. Are you saying everybody should carry a gun in their back pocket?

Also, where are you if you've got a person running at you and you're shooting? Certainly not at home or on the street somewhere, I'll guarantee you that. Unless you're at war. And, by the way, you would only need to shoot if they, too, had a gun. And who provided those? Hmmm, in Iraq, that was us. And the USSR in response to us.

Ignoring the hoards of posts:

Spoffin, not a bad idea, but you haven't hit the nail on the head.

Personally, as a gun owner, I think it should be a pain in the ass to get one. Once you get the special little liscense, you should be able to own whatever the hell you want, next to a grenade launcher.

I enjoy shooting an automatic on a firing range -- gives me some sort of thrill I cannot explain.

I also like my rifles for hunting. Why? Not only the thrill, but deer tastes better and is better for you than cow.

Also, where are you if you've got a person running at you and you're shooting? Certainly not at home or on the street somewhere, I'll guarantee you that.


New York.

xxx

Taking an "Aptitude Test" to own a gun is about as valid as saying we need to take an aptitude test to vote. Hey Liberal (couldn't remember your name) how much googling did you do to find that little fact about the M16? hehehe

The NRA has already 'defended' people rights to own grenade launchers, whats to stop them? The NRA will not stop until every baby is born with a Nuclear warhead clenched in his tiny little hands.

Prove it. Show me one article that shows the NRA advocating the use of grenade launchers.

New York.

ROFL! :D

Sad part -- it is true. :eek:

There's a right to free speech and the right to an attorney too, but those are also infringed, dummy. It's like the liscense to drive a car.
Besides, why do you need an AK?

Ahh, the need arguement. Love that one. Do I "need" a reason to advocate my rights?

Do you "need" the internet to express your 1st amendment rights? Aren't a paper and pen enough?

xxx

Taking an "Aptitude Test" to own a gun is about as valid as saying we need to take an aptitude test to vote. Hey Liberal (couldn't remember your name) how much googling did you do to find that little fact about the M16? hehehe
UM, leave Spoffin alone. Just because he's a liberal doesnt mean hes an extremist. Jeez, be nicer... YOU give us conservatives a bad reputation...

Dumbass, if Thomas Jefferson knew that in the future there would be semi-auto weapons I dont think he wouldve allowed guns, and also if you read the right to bear arms, you might have noticed the part that says "for a stronger militia" those days are over, now the army supplies weapons, I hate your type.

Where does it say "for a stronger militia"?

And since you seem to be able to seance the founding fathers I present this:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


And Jefferson was one of the primary factors in instituting the American Arms industry using advanced techniques, that he wouldn't be able to imagine improvements is naive at best.

Ahh, the need arguement. Love that one. Do I "need" a reason to advocate my rights?

Do you "need" the internet to express your 1st amendment rights? Aren't a paper and pen enough?

Ok, then let me ask this: Why do you want a semi-automatic? To have more fun in high schools?

And I didn't say I needed the internet. Hardly an argument, since the internet is a valuable source of international information and a faster, eaier way to contact people... I like my paper and pen as well. But killing in a faster way is a job only the military should even KIND OF be allowed to have.

Ok, then let me ask this: Why do you want a semi-automatic? To have more fun in high schools?

And I didn't say I needed the internet. Hardly an argument, since the internet is a valuable source of international information and a faster, eaier way to contact people... I like my paper and pen as well. But killing in a faster way is a job only the military should even KIND OF be allowed to have.

Ahh, arguement from emotion. So you assume the anyone who wants a semi-auto is a potential serial killer?

Why do I want(own) one? Because I enjoy speed target shooting and hunting. How did you go from Ak's to semi-auto's?

Ok. Point one. Aren't guns good self defense... against guns? Otherwise, a knife or a bow or even your own fists are just perfect.
Secondly, WHY do you need to know how to use a semi-automatic?
Thirdly, the point was not that guns should be outlawed... Because some people actually HUNT ANIMALS FOR SPORT rather that kill other people for sport... But that it should be required that those with guns should be able to use them. Point made.
And just so you know, I'm very liberal and I know how to use a gun just fine, thanks.
Too be truly effective, these things take training. And if you are substantially smaller than your opponent your fists or a knife ain't gonna do jack shit. A bow is just stupid for self defense, especially if you're walking around town. Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason. all but the smallest of people can fire a .45 effectively enough for self-defense, on the other hand. It ain't exactly hard to use a gun, since most guns have a maximum of four controls. A car, on the other hand, has about a minimum of twenty. As for using a semi-auto, why not? A revolver is clumsy and slow to reload, although generally more accurate.

Yeah, it gives the right to bear arms. But a few questions. One, does it ever say that "The right to bear unlegistlated arms" Or better yet, does it even say "firearms" Hell, I could give everyone swords, take away guns, and not be screwing with the 2nd amendment. Or better yet, it doesn't say "right to own ammo" Bullets are now illegal, be a real hunter, use a bow.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [ ... ] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

The only reason I continue to believe that guns should be legal for americans (who are mostly bad people) is that these bad people have put a bad government in power and the decent people should have something to shoot through the door with when the knock-in-the-night arrives.
*grins* Of the 80,000,000 people in the US who legally own guns, what do you think the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is? :sniper:

You know Leetonia, you're the kind of Liberal that gives other Liberals a horrible reputation. Let me guess, you're from Seattle?
I was being sarcastic for all but the last part. I'm to anti-gun to even consider shooting someone. And no, your wrong, I'm from South Carolina ph34r what the bible belt breeds!!!!!

Prove it. Show me one article that shows the NRA advocating the use of grenade launchers.
Okay, I can't show you the article because unlike a disturbingly high ratio in america I actually read newspapers, you know, those things on paper, that actually have relatively high standards asto what they can print. Anyway, part of that assault weapons bill that the NRA was lobbying to allow to expire banned the ownership of grenade launchers.

Okay, I can't show you the article because unlike a disturbingly high ratio in america I actually read newspapers, you know, those things on paper, that actually have relatively high standards asto what they can print. Anyway, part of that assault weapons bill that the NRA was lobbying to allow to expire banned the ownership of grenade launchers.

Most newpapers are online also. I also get the daily paper.

Are you honestly that naive? It had nothing to do w/ grenade lauchers. It banned grenade launcher attachments to some semi-auto weapons that are designed to LOOK LIKE military weapons.

This shows that you either just completely made that up and/or aren't willing to research both sides of an issue. Talk about one who spouts propaganda.

If you feel like it, go here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

and search S. 1431 which is the actual bill.

THE GOVERNMENT (Bush, at least, because Kerry would have banned all guns from America even if someone in the UN bathroom suggested it) IS THE REASON WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS!! WHY IN HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO CREATE OPPOSITION BY LETTING US HAVE GUNS IF THEY WANTED TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?!Yay for raving neo-cons who blindly except whatever the FAR right tells them. Let me guess, you watched that stupid NRA special saying how bad it would be if Kerry became president. (They stopped short of saying don't vote for him, because thats the legal limit).
Neo-cons fuss at me for watching Farienheit 9/11 (sp?) yet they spout out nonsense from the NRA and the Christian Coalition like its the Gospel (pun not intended but unavoidable)

Most newpapers are online also. I also get the daily paper.

Are you honestly that naive? It had nothing to do w/ grenade lauchers. It banned grenade launcher attachments to some semi-auto weapons that are designed to LOOK LIKE military weapons.

This shows that you either just completely made that up and/or aren't willing to research both sides of an issue. Talk about one who spouts propaganda.

If you feel like it, go here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

and search S. 1431 which is the actual bill.

Um, okay, broken link.

Also, admitted, that particular bill had some massive problems, but still it would have been smarter to FIX the problems than to let the bill go away completely. Just because there is a hole in your shield, don't throw the shield away. Also, I might be wrong on this, but i think the actual bill (I did admittedly misquote it) outlawed having both a bayonet mount and a grenade launcher, which brings up the question of "If you have a grenade launcher, do you really NEED the bayonet mount?"

Yay for raving neo-cons who blindly except whatever the FAR right tells them. Let me guess, you watched that stupid NRA special saying how bad it would be if Kerry became president. (They stopped short of saying don't vote for him, because thats the legal limit).
Neo-cons fuss at me for watching Farienheit 9/11 (sp?) yet they spout out nonsense from the NRA and the Christian Coalition like its the Gospel (pun not intended but unavoidable)

I for one am not a republican, neo-con, or christian. I am, however, an NRA member. Give me an example IYO (sourced please, not just your rambling) of the "nonsense" they spout.

Um, okay, broken link.

Also, admitted, that particular bill had some massive problems, but still it would have been smarter to FIX the problems than to let the bill go away completely. Just because there is a hole in your shield, don't throw the shield away. Also, I might be wrong on this, but i think the actual bill (I did admittedly misquote it) outlawed having both a bayonet mount and a grenade launcher, which brings up the question of "If you have a grenade launcher, do you really NEED the bayonet mount?"

Try www.senate.gov and go to legislation. type S.1431 in the search.

Once again you go on about the bill w/o having read it. It says NOTHING about grenade lauchers, its a grenade launcher mount. Thw whole bill was designed to ban guns that LOOK LIKE military weapons and are therefore "scary" and to further degrade gun ownership in the U.S.

Unlike what the media stated, it had nothing to do w/ machine guns, fully-auto weapons, or terrorism.

There's a right to free speech and the right to an attorney too, but those are also infringed, dummy. It's like the liscense to drive a car.
Besides, why do you need an AK?

Why may he need an AK? Self defense.

That isn't good enough for you? Well, a militia would need one to.

So, the AK is good for the individual and the militia. Shouldn't both sides be pleased with an AK then?

I for one am not a republican, neo-con, or christian. I am, however, an NRA member. Give me an example IYO (sourced please, not just your rambling) of the "nonsense" they spout.
Well okay, once again, no source because I lack a copy/link of the video they were airing every day for WEEKS before the election. But basically they tried to portray any form of gun legistlation as "Anti-constitution". They also refered to the 2nd Amendment as 'sacred'. I'm sorry, but as much as I love the bill of rights, I don't consider any of it to have anything to do with God/Yahweh/Jehova/Allah/What have you. Then again, I'm agnostic, so... It wasn't so much that there was no factual backing for the claims they made (all there references to votes were actually cited down at the bottom, for a bout a second so there was no way without a DVR that you could actually read it, but still there) its just that the way they presented their interpretation of the facts was SO incredibly biased it made me want to put my head in my hands and give out a long groan. Then again, the RNC this year illicited a similar response so maybe I'm just sensative. Besides, you nit-picking about me saying the "FAR right" (not I didn't mention the NRA by name until later on) making ridiculous claims. Doesn't change the fact that the post (or more specifically the statement) it was in response to was so horrendously biased as to not even be grounded in reality.

Yay for raving neo-cons who blindly except whatever the FAR right tells them. Let me guess, you watched that stupid NRA special saying how bad it would be if Kerry became president. (They stopped short of saying don't vote for him, because thats the legal limit).
Nope, I didn't watch the special, I just looked up Kerry's voting records....

Try www.senate.gov and go to legislation. type S.1431 in the search.

Once again you go on about the bill w/o having read it. It says NOTHING about grenade lauchers, its a grenade launcher mount. Thw whole bill was designed to ban guns that LOOK LIKE military weapons and are therefore "scary" and to further degrade gun ownership in the U.S.

Unlike what the media stated, it had nothing to do w/ machine guns, fully-auto weapons, or terrorism.
I'm well aware of that, most of the guns it banned were semi-automatic at best, and the legislation was early Clinton (correct or not?) so the entire 'we have to pass the law to protect us from terrorists' mentality hadn't kicked in yet. okay, and Grenade Launcher mount, grenade launcher, doesn't really make that substantial of a difference does it? And like I said earlier, it had some really stupid provisions, like banning forward grips, but some of the stuff was really good, like limiting ammo to 10 rounds on i think it was rifles and pistols, and also Section 1 was the only part that was about cosmetic limitations. (oddly enough still having a hard time finding the bit about a bayonet mount, so unless the Times really needs to check it research) Okay, still not finding anything about bayonet mounts, or grenade mounts, maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot, i kinda zoned out for the bit about 'by striking' blah and adding 'blah' I apologize for being malinformed, but you must agree, the ban had its good points, even if about 90 percent of the bans were cosmetically based.

Nope, I didn't watch the special, I just looked up Kerry's voting records....
And how did this make you think that Kerry would ban all guns because someone told him to in a bathroom. Are you really that insane? One thing I never understood about the campaign the republicans were running against Kerry. Apparently Kerry didn't have any opinion of his own except for what his pollsters told him to do, yet he still managed to be the most consistently liberal senator. (when did liberal become a dirty word btw?) I swear, Karl Rove is the king of giving people two conflicting messages and making them eat it.

Well okay, once again, no source because I lack a copy/link

of the video they were airing every day for WEEKS before the election. But basically they tried to portray any form of gun legistlation as "Anti-constitution". They also refered to the 2nd Amendment as 'sacred'. I'm sorry, but as much as I love the bill of rights, I don't consider any of it to have anything to do with God/Yahweh/Jehova/Allah/What have you. Then again, I'm agnostic, so... It wasn't so much that there was no factual backing for the claims they made (all there references to votes were actually cited down at the bottom, for a bout a second so there was no way without a DVR that you could actually read it, but still there) its just that the way they presented their interpretation of the facts was SO incredibly biased it made me want to put my head in my hands and give out a long groan. Then again, the RNC this year illicited a similar response so maybe I'm just sensative. Besides, you nit-picking about me saying the "FAR right" (not I didn't mention the NRA by name until later on) making ridiculous claims. Doesn't change the fact that the post (or more specifically the statement) it was in response to was so horrendously biased as to not even be grounded in reality.

So "once again" you still have no source for the information you present except your own imagination.

Yay for raving neo-cons who blindly except whatever the FAR right tells them. Let me guess, you watched that stupid NRA special saying how bad it would be if Kerry became president. (They stopped short of saying don't vote for him, because thats the legal limit).
Neo-cons fuss at me for watching Farienheit 9/11 (sp?) yet they spout out nonsense from the NRA and the Christian Coalition like its the Gospel (pun not intended but unavoidable)


That's what you wrote. You mentioned the NRA in the next sentance and then compared them to the CC.
Kerry has voted for almost every anti-gun measure presented during his 20 yrs in the senate.

I'm well aware of that, most of the guns it banned were semi-automatic at best, and the legislation was early Clinton (correct or not?) so the entire 'we have to pass the law to protect us from terrorists' mentality hadn't kicked in yet. okay, and Grenade Launcher mount, grenade launcher, doesn't really make that substantial of a difference does it? And like I said earlier, it had some really stupid provisions, like banning forward grips, but some of the stuff was really good, like limiting ammo to 10 rounds on i think it was rifles and pistols, and also Section 1 was the only part that was about cosmetic limitations. (oddly enough still having a hard time finding the bit about a bayonet mount, so unless the Times really needs to check it research) Okay, still not finding anything about bayonet mounts, or grenade mounts, maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot, i kinda zoned out for the bit about 'by striking' blah and adding 'blah' I apologize for being malinformed, but you must agree, the ban had its good points, even if about 90 percent of the bans were cosmetically based.

No I "musn't" agree. The ban had no good points and was merely one more attempt to ban guns in the U.S.

A Mount and a Launcher are not different? Please say you're kidding. How old are you anyway?

The Terrorist mentality is exactly why they tried to renew it.

So "once again" you still have no source for the information you present except your own imagination.

Yay for raving neo-cons who blindly except whatever the FAR right tells them. Let me guess, you watched that stupid NRA special saying how bad it would be if Kerry became president. (They stopped short of saying don't vote for him, because thats the legal limit).
Neo-cons fuss at me for watching Farienheit 9/11 (sp?) yet they spout out nonsense from the NRA and the Christian Coalition like its the Gospel (pun not intended but unavoidable)


That's what you wrote. You mentioned the NRA in the next sentance and then compared them to the CC.
Kerry has voted for almost every anti-gun measure presented during his 20 yrs in the senate.
Okay, it might not have been communicated well, but that was essentially a stream of conciousness thing. The 2nd sentence was directed specifically to "Wicked Clowns" or some intentional mispelling thereof's comment that Kerry would ban all guns because someone in the UN bathroom told him too. And I am well aware of Kerry's voting record(having the president of the NRA telling you about it every day you turn on the tv tends to do that), personally, I find it to be a good thing. And frankly, I don't see how anyone could have come to the conclusion he did without having had it fed to him by the far right. And I didn't compare the NRA to the CC, I mentioned that they are the most active conservative lobbies. NRA I can tolerate, I don't agree with them, but most of the time I can see a middle ground (getting there is a different story). CC I hold in utter contempt (yes I'm biased, but after having a religion forced on you for 18 years, you'll probably rebel against it to).

Totally unrelated note: Am I the only liberal that stays up this late? oh, they all left to watch the daily show... bastards.

And how did this make you think that Kerry would ban all guns because someone told him to in a bathroom. Are you really that insane? One thing I never understood about the campaign the republicans were running against Kerry. Apparently Kerry didn't have any opinion of his own except for what his pollsters told him to do, yet he still managed to be the most consistently liberal senator. (when did liberal become a dirty word btw?) I swear, Karl Rove is the king of giving people two conflicting messages and making them eat it.

Maybe because Kerry voted against firearms 51 out of 55 times and his own website had a link to the Brady Campaign formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.?

I had to pass a hunter's safety course before I cold even think about buying a hunting license. As for the loaded gun by the bedside issue: I grew up on a farm where loaded guns were located by my parent's bed and by each door (so that if a stray dog or something of the sort was terrorizing a prize cow or bull, it could be taken care of in a moment's notice) My parents disciplined me. I learned from an early age the dangers and consequences of guns and if I even thought about touching one of them without permission, I was punished.
America needs more discipline and more personal responsiblility. It's not the gun manufacturers fault for someone's death, it's the fault of the person using the gun.
I just wish everyone would wake up and realize that. :headbang:

No I "musn't" agree. The ban had no good points and was merely one more attempt to ban guns in the U.S.

A Mount and a Launcher are not different? Please say you're kidding. How old are you anyway?

The Terrorist mentality is exactly why they tried to renew it.
Okay, it appears that you are one of the members of the NRA that consider any attempt to legistlate guns to be a conspiracy to ban them outright (don't need a source, just re-read your posts from as close to a moderate standpoint as you can bring yourself.) And if you have a mount, then chances are you at least plan to get a launcher, that's how its not a significant difference. And may I enquire as to your age? (really, unless I'm some twelve year old just spouting what mommy and daddy taught me age isn't doesn't mean much) I'm voting age, I'll leave it at that.

uh-huh, yeah, you can't violate the constitution. Which totally explains why you conservatives throw the first amendment out the window when it comes to janet jackson or gay marriage. And i'm also thankful that we've taken the time to blame clinton for the problems our military is having. Its not clinton's fault our president took us to war against a basically harmless country (according to every study i've read) which according to the evidence didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or wmds. How can we blame clinton because bush opened up a second front to distract us from the fact he's too much of a bumbling idiot to catch Osama or keep the economy from drowning (slow and steady recovery my ass)

Maybe because Kerry voted against firearms 51 out of 55 times and his own website had a link to the Brady Campaign formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.?
Okay, once again "Control"!="Ban" Heck, in this country, we need a piece of paper to tell people we were born. We need a license to get married. We need a piece of paper saying that we can vote. Why shouldn't we have at least some rules governing the most dangerous thing that we can legally own. (car=close second)

yeah my question is why would you need a mount for a grenade launcher you don't own? hmmm.....

yeah my question is why would you need a mount for a grenade launcher you don't own? hmmm.....

It comes that way.

and also why do you need a handgun, for self defense against a person with a ....handgun?

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?


Yes, I think it's a very good idea.

Yay, daily show's over, I'm not the only liberal fighting off two conservatives anymore!

and also why do you need a handgun, for self defense against a person with a ....handgun?

To even it up, of course.

Let me ask you this, would you rather defend yourself against a guy with a handgun, without a gun?

and also why do you need a handgun, for self defense against a person with a ....handgun?


Yes or they could have a knife or other deadly weapon. And also if the person is physically stronger than you, you'd have the advantage of having a fire-arm.

To even it up, of course.

Let me ask you this, would you rather defend yourself against a guy with a handgun, without a gun?
Yes, because then I could taunt him even more after I beat his ass down (the guys who would attack you with a gun in my neighborhood are idiots, they try and use guns as an object of intimidation, which they don't work that well for at close range)

Let's see what the gun control nuts think of this:

I live in an area where firearms outnumber residents. By a lot, like four-to-one, maybe even higher. We haven't had a violent crime in more than thirty years. And that violent crime had nothing to do with firearms, either.

The simple fact is this: Guns DO make for a safe environment. Yeah, we still have crime, but it's traffic violations and druggies, but not burglaries or murders or rapes. Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone when you're surrounded by guns?

Also, gun control sometimes doesn't make any sense. My dad used to be in the Army, and he lived in Maryland. Under Maryland law, he couldn't legally own or buy a firearm, despite the fact that he was a member of the Armed Forces! At the same time, some hoodlum who didn't observe laws anyway would break the gun control laws and acquire a firearm illegally in some cash-transaction, unregistered, under-the-table sale, completely invisible to the government. Gun control only works if the bad guys tried to buy guns legally, but not many of them do that, do they? Gun control only makes it harder for honest citizens to buy firearms and does nothing to address the manner in which criminals buy them.

exactly. We aren't trying to take away your precious guns. We simply want to be sure that your competent enough to not hit one of us in the face by accident. I don't understand how you could be against this bill unless your scared your not intelligent enough to own a gun

Yes, because then I could taunt him even more after I beat his ass down (the guys who would attack you with a gun in my neighborhood are idiots, they try and use guns as an object of intimidation, which they don't work that well for at close range)

Yeah right :rolleyes:

But Tom Clancy novels aside and all else being equal, a handgun evens things up.

deacon i think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that by banning handguns you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by a man wielding a handgun would you? would it be safer to live in a culture where everyone owns a gun or no-one owns a gun. I think the answer is obvious

Let's see what the gun control nuts think of this:

I live in an area where firearms outnumber residents. By a lot, like four-to-one, maybe even higher. We haven't had a violent crime in more than thirty years. And that violent crime had nothing to do with firearms, either.

The simple fact is this: Guns DO make for a safe environment. Yeah, we still have crime, but it's traffic violations and druggies, but not burglaries or murders or rapes. Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone when you're surrounded by guns?

Also, gun control sometimes doesn't make any sense. My dad used to be in the Army, and he lived in Maryland. Under Maryland law, he couldn't legally own or buy a firearm, despite the fact that he was a member of the Armed Forces! At the same time, some hoodlum who didn't observe laws anyway would break the gun control laws and acquire a firearm illegally in some cash-transaction, unregistered, under-the-table sale, completely invisible to the government. Gun control only works if the bad guys tried to buy guns legally, but not many of them do that, do they? Gun control only makes it harder for honest citizens to buy firearms and does nothing to address the manner in which criminals buy them.You bring up some interesting issues, and most of them are true. Now personally, I don't think the crime rate is directly related to the gun/person ratio as you claim, though it is probably a factor. Gun legislation on its own does nothing, but if you can shut down the illegal arms trade, then the gun legislation becomes really effective. Gun legislation still has its place though, because wouldn't it be awful embarassing if a guy who just got out of jail for shooting his neighbor goes, buys a gun, and then shoots whoever's moved in next to him? Yes, its still possible for him to get a gun illegally, but here's the thing, it adds a level of difficulty, and I can't think of a blackmarket anywhere that sells stuff at SRP.

I want to clarify something about my earlier post. In the majority of homes in this area that I've visited, most of those firearms are not locked up, do not have trigger locks, and are easily accessible by anyone in the house. I want to stress that there has not been a violent crime in around thirty years.

Let's see what the gun control nuts think of this:

I live in an area where firearms outnumber residents. By a lot, like four-to-one, maybe even higher. We haven't had a violent crime in more than thirty years. And that violent crime had nothing to do with firearms, either.

The simple fact is this: Guns DO make for a safe environment. Yeah, we still have crime, but it's traffic violations and druggies, but not burglaries or murders or rapes. Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone when you're surrounded by guns?

Also, gun control sometimes doesn't make any sense. My dad used to be in the Army, and he lived in Maryland. Under Maryland law, he couldn't legally own or buy a firearm, despite the fact that he was a member of the Armed Forces! At the same time, some hoodlum who didn't observe laws anyway would break the gun control laws and acquire a firearm illegally in some cash-transaction, unregistered, under-the-table sale, completely invisible to the government. Gun control only works if the bad guys tried to buy guns legally, but not many of them do that, do they? Gun control only makes it harder for honest citizens to buy firearms and does nothing to address the manner in which criminals buy them.

I'm not a nut. I simply don't like the idea of a bunch of drunk rednecks running around with firearms, thats all.

deacon i think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that by banning handguns you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by a man wielding a handgun would you? would it be safer to live in a culture where everyone owns a gun or no-one owns a gun. I think the answer is obvious

Banning handguns wouldn't get rid of them. It only means that law-abiding citizens couldn't own them. Criminals, obviously, don't follow laws, so what good is a law making handguns illegal? It would just be another law for them to break.

deacon i think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that by banning handguns you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by a man wielding a handgun would you? would it be safer to live in a culture where everyone owns a gun or no-one owns a gun. I think the answer is obvious
Problem: banning handguns does not keep people from buying handguns illegally.
Also, handguns are the gun type least used in crimes, or so I've been told. Can anyone verify this for me?

deacon i think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that by banning handguns you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by a man wielding a handgun would you? would it be safer to live in a culture where everyone owns a gun or no-one owns a gun. I think the answer is obvious

Yet oddly enough, even after bans, there they are. With criminals wielding them.

Tell you what. Get crystal meth and heroine completely off the streets first, then we might consider listening to more bans. Until then I don't believe that any such ban will ever disarm criminals, so I stand on my second amendment rights.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

But Tom Clancy novels aside and all else being equal, a handgun evens things up.
No I'm actually serious, I'm competent enough in close range that I can disarm a guy with a handgun fairly quickly. Plus I usually carry some fairly nasty close range stuff on my person. (chains, knives, keys, pencils, and within 10 seconds, the grip of their own pistol)

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Roach Cliffs
I do wish that people would stop using "liberal" as an expletive and doing the same with "neo-con" etc... Insults waste space and time. Lets grow up and debate like civilized folk.
Kerry would have banned all guns from America even if someone in the UN bathroom suggested it. The Wickit Klownz
Yes, just like Clinton did. Don't you remember when those bad men in the black helocopter came to take your childhood uzi collection away. I am very sorry that grandma had to heroically fight to the last. The only liberals who want to do that are usually too high to matter and they vote for Nader
But too many politicians do. Kecibukia
Not many even among democrats actually seek to ban guns. They managed to remain legal for all those years that the Democrats controlled the government.
How do you propose the Gov't "insures" guns are kept out of the hands of those w/ "malevolent intent"? Kecibukia
That is often easier said then done. However a solid federal licensing program could help insure that our "well regulated militia" (U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment 2.)

A: Knows how to use their weapons

B: Is composed of people unlikely to shoot up a shopping mall, take pot shots at people or accidentedly shoot someone. This group is , convicted felons (who already cannot vote), and those who are incapable of that kind of judgement for another reason. This last group includes children who need to be supervised by a parent with a gun license or qualified instructor, the mentally ill (defined the same way it is now by doctors,) the metally retarded and the blind need an assistant with a license.

C: Have no plans to permit those who are one of the things listed under B to get arms from them.

The NRA would be ideally suited to provide the instructors for these classes as a federal contracter. I hope that I have covered all angles here but I doubt it thats why laws are very long, well that and pork.

No I'm actually serious, I'm competent enough in close range that I can disarm a guy with a handgun fairly quickly. Plus I usually carry some fairly nasty close range stuff on my person. (chains, knives, keys, pencils, and within 10 seconds, the grip of their own pistol)

And you've actually disarmed someone for real who was threating you with a handgun?

I want to clarify something about my earlier post. In the majority of homes in this area that I've visited, most of those firearms are not locked up, do not have trigger locks, and are easily accessible by anyone in the house. I want to stress that there has not been a violent crime in around thirty years.
How many "accidental" firearm deaths?

I'm not a nut. I simply don't like the idea of a bunch of drunk rednecks running around with firearms, thats all.

I would be considered a redneck, in a redneck area. I have never seen drunk rednecks run around with firearms before.

to be really honest i would be more afraid of a culture where everyone can walk around with a deadly weapon in their pocket then a culture where only criminals have guns. I'd probably be statistically less likely to get shot. Just look at the frequency that cops accidently shoot innocent people by accident. And those are trained police officers. Just think if that drunk idiot on your block had a handgun. Just think how many people would be shot accidently?

How many "accidental" firearm deaths?

None that I know of, but last week some guy tripped over a fence while hunting and stuck himself in the leg with an arrow.

deacon i think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that by banning handguns you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by a man wielding a handgun would you? would it be safer to live in a culture where everyone owns a gun or no-one owns a gun. I think the answer is obvious


Actually, you wouldn't be a lot safer. There are other deadly weapons besides guns. It is easier to defend yourself with a hand gun then a knife for example. With a knife you have to be at a very close range, with a gun you don't. You always have to worry about being attacked guns or no guns, taking away a means of defense isn't going to make it safer.

Even if you have a law forbiding owning guns do you really think everyone is going to turn in their fire-arms? Do you think the criminals are going to turn in their guns? I don't think so.

I would be considered a redneck, in a redneck area. I have never seen drunk rednecks run around with firearms before.
More of a stagger really (its a joke, don't flame)

Viewed by Cause of Death

The leading causes of fatal unintentional injuries in 1998 are the same top five since 1970 and they account for 80% of all deaths (74,000 of the 92,200).

Unintentional-Injury Deaths by Event, United States, 1998

Motor vehicle 41,200
Falls 16,600
Poisoning* 8,400
Drowning 4,100
Fires and burns 3,700

Speaking in terms of negligence, guns are less dangerous than swimming pools and public waterways.

In terms of actual cause of death, your are more likely to die seeing your physician than you are being shot.

(National Safety Council)

well TJ i live in the city and i definitly have seen rednecks running around waving guns. Also if your from the country, as you imply. What the hell do you know about violent crime? of course you don't have large numbers of murders. Try living in a bad part of the city with me and tell me there should be more hanguns.

And you've actually disarmed someone for real who was threating you with a handgun?
One loaded with rubber pellets (training excercise) Took me a few tries to get the hang of it, but I'm confident now. btw, rubber bullets hurt like HELL!

I'm not a nut. I simply don't like the idea of a bunch of drunk rednecks running around with firearms, thats all.
God-fucking-damnit. You people have no idea how many posts like this there are, do you? If I could, I would pay for these people's flights, food, and hotels just so they could come to Alabama and learn that not all Southerners are ignorant, in-bred, drunken hillbillies. Matter of Fact, Southerners are pretty damn intelligent. I'm only 15 years old, and on the adult IQ scale, I'm ranked as a High Genius with an IQ of 156. And I'm nowhere near the smartest kid in my school. Think about it, my IQ is in the top 98% of America, and my classmates are smarter than I am. Now, I know that IQ only measures potential, but I would like to see some people from up North that at least realize that there are just as many ignorant people up North as down South, if not fewer.

The South has the THIRD largest economy in the WORLD. So, if we're the drunken idiots of America, and we're still outdoing the "smart" regions, what does that say about them?

to be really honest i would be more afraid of a culture where everyone can walk around with a deadly weapon in their pocket then a culture where only criminals have guns. I'd probably be statistically less likely to get shot. Just look at the frequency that cops accidently shoot innocent people by accident. And those are trained police officers. Just think if that drunk idiot on your block had a handgun. Just think how many people would be shot accidently?
1)Everybody behind the wheel of a car has a proverbial "deadly weapon in their pocket"
2)The odds of you getting shot are actually probably the same, unless you believe that people would start shooting for no apparent reason
3)Cops shooting innocents: proof, please?
4)The drunk idiot probably would not pass the test proposed

So, you have done so once out of how many tries?

well TJ i live in the city and i definitly have seen rednecks running around waving guns. Also if your from the country, as you imply. What the hell do you know about violent crime? of course you don't have large numbers of murders. Try living in a bad part of the city with me and tell me there should be more hanguns.

Yes, I do live in the country, but I've also lived in Washington, D.C. There were large numbers of murders there, and firearms were illegal and possessed only by cops and criminals. Here, there are no murders, and everyone and their dog owns a gun.

hey now. I never said people in the south were dumber. There are plenty of idiots in the north too. I've been the deep south several times. I'm simply saying there are a large number of people out there who would cause me to fear for my life if they had a gun.

God-fucking-damnit. You people have no idea how many posts like this there are, do you? If I could, I would pay for these people's flights, food, and hotels just so they could come to Alabama and learn that not all Southerners are ignorant, in-bred, drunken hillbillies. Matter of Fact, Southerners are pretty damn intelligent. I'm only 15 years old, and on the adult IQ scale, I'm ranked as a High Genius with an IQ of 156. And I'm nowhere near the smartest kid in my school. Think about it, my IQ is in the top 98% of America, and my classmates are smarter than I am. Now, I know that IQ only measures potential, but I would like to see some people from up North that at least realize that there are just as many ignorant people up North as down South, if not fewer.

The South has the THIRD largest economy in the WORLD. So, if we're the drunken idiots of America, and we're still outdoing the "smart" regions, what does that say about them?
Wrong, the third largest economy in the world belongs to California, which last I checked, isn't part of the south unless you go by purely geographical lines. And frankly, I'm from the south, and I've seen plenty of the drunk rednecks, course, they're actually fairly safe with their guns, its the suburban people who end up shooting themselves/family members.

One loaded with rubber pellets (training excercise) Took me a few tries to get the hang of it, but I'm confident now. btw, rubber bullets hurt like HELL!

Training excercise is not the same thing as a real life situation, it only prepares you for it. Are you so sure that you would be able to disarm someone who really was intent on killing you and had real lead bullets in their gun?

and also judging by current state run policies, yes those idiots would get a gun. In addition you've made my point for me. Cars are deadly, thats why cars are restricted. Guns are also deadly. They should also be restricted. And I mean actually restricted. Not that "if they've commited like 12 felonies or murdered someone they can't have a gun"

So, you have done so once out of how many tries?You misunderstand, there were a few flukes early on, but he (the instructor) kept testing until I could wretch the gun from his hand quickly and repetatively. Anyway, I'll probably be bumping this thread like crazy tomorrow, but I have to go to sleep right now. (morning classes suck)

In response to TJ i have definitly seen a gun in the city. I've seen more then a few.

I'm sorry for my outburst. I just don't know how much more of that shit i can take...

and it's okay NWA, i overreacted... It's just everytime i hear a northerner talking about guns, they always attack the south... always...

and also judging by current state run policies, yes those idiots would get a gun. In addition you've made my point for me. Cars are deadly, thats why cars are restricted. Guns are also deadly. They should also be restricted. And I mean actually restricted. Not that "if they've commited like 12 felonies or murdered someone they can't have a gun"

If you can devise an efficient method of allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms and preventing criminals from obtaining them, legally or illegally, then I'm in perfect agreement with you.

and also judging by current state run policies, yes those idiots would get a gun. In addition you've made my point for me. Cars are deadly, thats why cars are restricted. Guns are also deadly. They should also be restricted. And I mean actually restricted. Not that "if they've commited like 12 felonies or murdered someone they can't have a gun"
How did I make your point for you? The proposition here is gun licensing similar to car licensing, whereas you are saying no guns at all.

hey now. I never said people in the south were dumber. There are plenty of idiots in the north too. I've been the deep south several times. I'm simply saying there are a large number of people out there who would cause me to fear for my life if they had a gun.

I don't fear people who have guns (or other deadly weapons) because I know how to use a gun myself. Therefore, I can even up the score.

its understandable. I did sort exagerate. just to make things clear though i don't dislike the south. i just don't like stupid people. And stupid people exist everywhere.

a strong militia being in the interest of the nation the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our rights are protected and we can own guns if we want to. fact of the matter is that most of the guns that are used to commit crimes are aquired illegaly anyhow. If you were to ban all guns then the people who abide by the law would not be able to defend themselfs because i dont think that the criminals would hand their guns in.

It's perfectly okay. I always overreact when someone insults the South. I hate being thought of as an imbecile simply because I'm from the Southern United States.

Americans without guns wouldn't be nearly as entertaining to the rest of us. So a few Amercicans die each year, big deal. Without the right to bear guns you would be like Canadians.

It is like violent movies, big cars and going to war every 5 years - part of the defining culture of America.

i agree with the concept of gun control, even to the point that i believe every person should undergo firearms training (just in case), but i also believe that every person who owns a firearm should be compelled to undergo a mandatory psych test every year. This is because the firearms safety test may not weed out all non-competent users. Any failed psych test should then disqualify the person for life.

Guns are just too dangerous to be taken lightly

i'm not an advocate of banning guns. A comment was made about how someone needed a gun to protect himself from a man with a gun and i was poking fun at them. I would support strict liscencing on all guns. eventually yes i would like to get rid of handguns and i think that should be what we're working towards. our society should be peaceful because of understanding, not fear of getting our heads blown off. Yes we need to protect ourselves until we can get guns out of the hands of criminals but widespread gun ownership should be part of the path to a stable society, not the end result.

also this liscencing must include some sort of psych test/review. For most of the states right now that have concealed weapon permits you basically have the right to a gun unless you have actually commited a felony. This is ridiculous.

i'm not an advocate of banning guns. A comment was made about how someone needed a gun to protect himself from a man with a gun and i was poking fun at them. I would support strict liscencing on all guns. eventually yes i would like to get rid of handguns and i think that should be what we're working towards. our society should be peaceful because of understanding, not fear of getting our heads blown off. Yes we need to protect ourselves until we can get guns out of the hands of criminals but widespread gun ownership should be part of the path to a stable society, not the end result.

why hand guns? rifles can be much more dangerous if you start banning some types of weapons youll quickly move to banning others. adn what about people who collect guns as a hobby?

i know how you feel though. I don't like being thought of as a liberal yuppy because i'm from a union state. i definitly sympathize

i mention handguns because they have only 1 purpose, to kill humans. rifles can be more dangerous but they are used for hunting and that can't be banned.

i mention handguns because they have only 1 purpose, to kill humans. rifles can be more dangerous but they are used for hunting and that can't be banned.

you can use handguns to shoot targets and its fun too

also this liscencing must include some sort of psych test/review. For most of the states right now that have concealed weapon permits you basically have the right to a gun unless you have actually commited a felony. This is ridiculous.

See this is where it ceases to be a safety program and becomes gun control through the back door.

Mentally ill people are already forbidden to own guns. Who sets up this "pysch test". Is it the same one they currently give those who enter the armed forces, because there is no evidence that they even work.

Or do you have to go through numerous one on one evaluations?

And who says who is unfit.

i mention handguns because they have only 1 purpose, to kill humans. rifles can be more dangerous but they are used for hunting and that can't be banned.
Handguns can be used for hunting, too. They aren't as effective, usually, but I think that adds to the sporting nature, giving the animals a fighting chance.

Handguns can be used for hunting, too. They aren't as effective, usually, but I think that adds to the sporting nature, giving the animals a fighting chance.

im pro gun but thats just silly their not that accurate and what if you hit another hunter? we definatly need to promote more gun safty

im pro gun but thats just silly their not that accurate and what if you hit another hunter? we definatly need to promote more gun safty

Actually there are quite a few people who like to go handgun hunting. Mostly more experienced hunters.

And in a way it's safer because you have to get much closer to the animal, so it reduces the chance of "hunting accidents" - which are actually very rare in any case.

Actually there are quite a few people who like to go handgun hunting. Mostly more experienced hunters.

And in a way it's safer because you have to get much closer to the animal, so it reduces the chance of "hunting accidents" - which are actually very rare in any case.

what with no scope and a high velocity flat tiped round like most handguns use maby if you went hunting with a pussy 9mm but you wouldnt hit anything, plus the barrel on a handgun is shorter so theres less rifling and how close to a deer can you really get?

what with no scope and a high velocity flat tiped round like most handguns use maby if you went hunting with a pussy 9mm but you wouldnt hit anything, plus the barrel on a handgun is shorter so theres less rifling and how close to a deer can you really get?

I've never handgun hunted, but I believe it is mostly done with .357 and .44's

Nevertheless, I do bow hunt, and you can get pretty damn close (20yds), if you set up the stand right. That's the skill.

I've never handgun hunted, but I believe it is mostly done with .357 and .44's

Nevertheless, I do bow hunt, and you can get pretty damn close (20yds), if you set up the stand right. That's the skill.

ok granted that people can hit things with handguns from 20 yards but there are a shitload of people who cant and arnt good enough with a handgun for people to promote handgun hunting

ok granted that people can hit things with handguns from 20 yards but there are a shitload of people who cant and arnt good enough with a handgun for people to promote handgun hunting

If they were going to hunt though, they'd practice first. It's like bowhunting. You have to learn to use the bow before you can go hunting. You don't just stomp off into the woods and start flinging arrows around.

If they were going to hunt though, they'd practice first. It's like bowhunting. You have to learn to use the bow before you can go hunting. You don't just stomp off into the woods and start flinging arrows around.

youd be suprised at what ive seen. particulary people with their dads guns when their not supposed to have them

youd be suprised at what ive seen. particulary people with their dads guns when their not supposed to have them

well that's a seperate issue. I assume they were not going hunting with them,

And also, whenever you see anyone with their parents guns, and they are not being supervised and they don't have permission etc. Rat them out straight away. Even if yuou have to do it through your own parents. Guns aren't toys.

Look, people, the whole point of this idea was to cut down on accidental deaths related to guns. I'm sick of conservatives saying that people don't die from gun accidents, I've known people who have. I'm also sick of hearing liberals say that we have to ban guns, because the criminals are gonna get them anyway. I think the idea that started this thread is a great one, and I'd vote for it. F*** you conservatives who are trying to say the assault weapons ban was bad, by the way.

well that's a seperate issue. I assume they were not going hunting with them,

And also, whenever you see anyone with their parents guns, and they are not being supervised and they don't have permission etc. Rat them out straight away. Even if yuou have to do it through your own parents. Guns aren't toys.

no shit my dads a gun collector i know all that crap im just saying that young people need to be educated about guns like as a tool not for aiming at people unless the point one at you first

no shit my dads a gun collector i know all that crap im just saying that young people need to be educated about guns like as a tool not for aiming at people unless the point one at you first

Oh okay then.

I just remember when I was younger, I had a somewhat skewed loyalty system, that's all. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

And like I said earlier in the thread. Gun safety should be taught at school.

Oh okay then.

I just remember when I was younger, I had a somewhat skewed loyalty system, that's all. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

And like I said earlier in the thread. Gun safety should be taught at school.

yean it should they teach it in the boy scouts

I think the idea that started this thread is a great one, and I'd vote for it. F*** you conservatives who are trying to say the assault weapons ban was bad, by the way.

And I agreed w/ the intent of this thread for the most part.

Since you so eloquently stated your opinion of the AWB, why don't you clarify why you think it's good.

Okay, it appears that you are one of the members of the NRA that consider any attempt to legistlate guns to be a conspiracy to ban them outright (don't need a source, just re-read your posts from as close to a moderate standpoint as you can bring yourself.) And if you have a mount, then chances are you at least plan to get a launcher, that's how its not a significant difference. And may I enquire as to your age? (really, unless I'm some twelve year old just spouting what mommy and daddy taught me age isn't doesn't mean much) I'm voting age, I'll leave it at that.

Now I'm a conspiracy nut. You have no references to back up your claims except that you read the newspaperhave seen some political ads, and taken a self defense course. Since you touted your views, that's what I've asked for and you've provided nothing but opinions. Come on, provide SOMETHING that backs you up, ANYTHING. Hell, I'ld even accept a quote from Handgun Control, Inc. Of course they've stated you shouldn't defend yourself at all.

You have a mount and "chances are"? That's really too funny. Fine, you own a computer so "chances are" you could be a hacker. You own a car that goes over 65 mph, "chances are" you could speed.

I'm 30.

Because there's no reason not to keep random people from owning powerful weapons. One of my coworkers owns an AK-47, and he's looking to buy a 300 magnum winchester (I believe that's what it's called), and I'd pin him as the kind of guy who would shoot a surprise visitor in the middle of the night, thereby (in the case of the AK) riddling them beyond recognition, or (in the case of the rifle) tear them in half at the torso. I understand that criminals will always get assault weapons, which is why I say arm the cops to the teeth to prevent that sticky situation in (it's late so give me some leeway) California, I believe, where those two guys with body armor and assault weapons held off cops in a gunfight for about an hour. They were just standing in front of the bank, not hiding or anything. In short, it was helping, if only a bit, and getting rid of it was just a political move by the Bush campaign to ensure the NRA vote.

Ok. Point one. Aren't guns good self defense... against guns? Otherwise, a knife or a bow or even your own fists are just perfect.
Secondly, WHY do you need to know how to use a semi-automatic?

Hell, I probably don't need it. Six foot, young, reasonably fit male here.

But when I'm a six foot old man, how is a knife going to help me?

Should only people with good physical strength should be able to defend themselves?

Screw old people, women, children, the disabled?

And yes, guns are good defence against guns. The guns that criminals are always going to have no matter what laws you pass.

Because there's no reason not to keep random people from owning powerful weapons. One of my coworkers owns an AK-47, and he's looking to buy a 300 magnum winchester (I believe that's what it's called), and I'd pin him as the kind of guy who would shoot a surprise visitor in the middle of the night, thereby (in the case of the AK) riddling them beyond recognition, or (in the case of the rifle) tear them in half at the torso. I understand that criminals will always get assault weapons, which is why I say arm the cops to the teeth to prevent that sticky situation in (it's late so give me some leeway) California, I believe, where those two guys with body armor and assault weapons held off cops in a gunfight for about an hour. They were just standing in front of the bank, not hiding or anything. In short, it was helping, if only a bit, and getting rid of it was just a political move by the Bush campaign to ensure the NRA vote.

Does your co worker own an AK-47 or a SAR that LOOKS like an AK-47? Riddling, tearing in half? You have read too much anti-gun propaganda, neither of the weapons could do that except a REAL AK which can only be owned w/ a class III license.

Yes, I remember the bank robbery, w/ two guns that were ILLEGALLY converted to fully auto. Wait, it was already against the law, how did that happen? Criminals not following the law? Never. Do you also remember they were wearing head to toe body armour that the cops bullets couldn't penetrate? Should we ban that too?

The ban did not help at all. Show me some proof.

Do you even know what they defined an "assault weapon" as?

Does your co worker own an AK-47 or a SAR that LOOKS like an AK-47? Riddling, tearing in half? You have read too much anti-gun propaganda, neither of the weapons could do that except a REAL AK which can only be owned w/ a class III license.

Yes, I remember the bank robbery, w/ two guns that were ILLEGALLY converted to fully auto. Wait, it was already against the law, how did that happen? Criminals not following the law? Never. Do you also remember they were wearing head to toe body armour that the cops bullets couldn't penetrate? Should we ban that too?

The ban did not help at all. Show me some proof.

He's ex-military, it's the real deal...you misunderstand, I was confessing through that example the failings of the ban and explaining the solution I percieve. It's quite possible I named the wrong weapon, but he showed me ballistics data that claimed the exit wound on whatever weapon he's after (used to hunt bears) would be large enough to tear a normal-sized person in half horizontally.

He's ex-military, it's the real deal...you misunderstand, I was confessing through that example the failings of the ban and explaining the solution I percieve. It's quite possible I named the wrong weapon, but he showed me ballistics data that claimed the exit wound on whatever weapon he's after (used to hunt bears) would be large enough to tear a normal-sized person in half horizontally.

I'm also ex-military and own a SAR that looks like an AK-47. If he owns a real one, he either has a Class III license for which he went through hell and high water, or it is illegal.

ok granted that people can hit things with handguns from 20 yards but there are a shitload of people who cant and arnt good enough with a handgun for people to promote handgun hunting

I'd say anyone could hit things with a handgun from 20 yards.

I went pistol shooting for the first time and was shooting small-plate sized targets reliably. Nothing wider than a car tyre.

Well he claimed it was the real deal, hell if I know though. I'm pretty much on your side on this one, I just wanted to make a vague effort to bring this thread back to the primary topic, which wasn't the assault weapons ban. I admit it had its problems, but I also believe that it either did some good or was a step towards doing some good. I'm from North Carolina and I own a Walther P99...I'm all for owning guns for fun, but I think people need to recognize (as hypocritical as this may sound) that guns aren't just for fun. Coincidentally, if I ever had to defend my home, I'd use one of my swords from my collection.

He's ex-military, it's the real deal...you misunderstand, I was confessing through that example the failings of the ban and explaining the solution I percieve. It's quite possible I named the wrong weapon, but he showed me ballistics data that claimed the exit wound on whatever weapon he's after (used to hunt bears) would be large enough to tear a normal-sized person in half horizontally.

A very high powered rifle wouldn't tear you in half. More likely the slug would just go straight through without tumbling, leaving a smaller exit wound.

Edit: Unless it hit the head, then it could be messy.

Makes sense to me, Dave, but he showed me ballistics data. That was my initial response, though.

Makes sense to me, Dave, but he showed me ballistics data. That was my initial response, though.

Surely ballistics data wouldn't tell you about exit wound size though.

Yeah it did...give me a few minutes and I'll try to find the site he showed me.

K thxs, I'm curious now.

Well he claimed it was the real deal, hell if I know though. I'm pretty much on your side on this one, I just wanted to make a vague effort to bring this thread back to the primary topic, which wasn't the assault weapons ban. I admit it had its problems, but I also believe that it either did some good or was a step towards doing some good. I'm from North Carolina and I own a Walther P99...I'm all for owning guns for fun, but I think people need to recognize (as hypocritical as this may sound) that guns aren't just for fun. Coincidentally, if I ever had to defend my home, I'd use one of my swords from my collection.

OK reasonable. However for future reference, you may want to avoid phrases like F*** all you conservatives when trying to make a point. It gets people defensive.

I don't think the AWB was a step anywhere but back. It did nothing but drive prices up for law abiding citizens. I agreed for the most part with the original poster w/ some reservations/clarifications. I tend to get twitchy when people try to ban various firearms for "safety" or whatever reason is popular at the time.

I own several guns, some for fun, some for hobbies (reenactments, etc.) and one for home defense. I have a wife and two kids. Someone breaks into my home, assuming they get past the dogs, will meet Betsy, my 12 ga. dbl barrel shotgun. It is not a toy. When my father passed away, I purchased a 9mm pistol for my mom who was then living alone. I instructed her in its use (take her out about twice a year to shoot) and told her if anything happens to bolt the bedroom door, load the clip into the gun and call the cops. I also drill my wife in the use of the shotgun in case I'm not home. She also knows how to shoot all of the other guns in the house but the SG is the only directly loaded one.

I respect Betsy's power, but I question her ultimate efficiency...she'll put big holes in your wall after putting bigger ones in the intruder :) .