NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Anyone besides me think this entire issue is bogus? Note that the Columbus law only bans "military-style" semi-automatic weapons, not semi-automatic weapons which aren't "military-style," and that it only affects those who register the weapons. As I have pointed out repeatedly in threads about gun-banners, this approach makes absolutely no sense at all and seems to be nothing more than a reaction to appearance rather than anything substantive.


N.R.A. Cancels Convention in Columbus Because of Ban (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/national/19nra.html?th&emc=th)

By JAMES DAO
Published: July 19, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 18 - Looking to punish this city for enacting a ban on assault weapons, the National Rifle Association announced on Monday that it had canceled plans to hold its national convention here in 2007, an event that was expected to pump more than $15 million into the local economy.

"Thanks to the Columbus City Council, 65,000 people will not be coming to your wonderful Greater Columbus Convention Center in 2007," Wayne LaPierre, the rifle association's executive vice president, said in a news conference here. "The only thing the City Council can expect out of their decision is the gratitude of those businesses in the city we go to instead."

The announcement came five days after Mayor Michael Coleman signed legislation outlawing the sale of certain kinds of military-style semiautomatic weapons and requiring people who purchased such guns before the law's effective date, Aug. 12, to register them with the police.

Columbus officials and gun control groups condemned the rifle association's decision, calling it an effort not only to embarrass the Council but also to bully the State Legislature into passing a bill that would invalidate the Columbus ban and prohibit other cities from enacting similar measures. A Republican lawmaker is expected to introduce such legislation this fall.

"What we saw today was a heavy-handed attempt to dictate policy," Mr. Coleman said at City Hall on Monday afternoon. "That might work in Washington, but it's not going to work in Columbus."

Supporters of the Columbus law, including the police officers union, said they pushed for a local ban in response to the expiration of the federal law. They said that the Columbus police had confiscated larger numbers of military-style weapons in recent years from criminals, including a murder suspect who wounded a police officer in a fierce gun battle last year.

"We need anything that puts another tool in our belt to keep weapons out of criminals' hands," said Detective Daniel R. Jones, the officer who was wounded in that firefight and has lost hearing in one ear.

The weapon that injured Detective Jones was a fully automatic AK-47 rifle that was illegal even before Columbus enacted its ban on assault weapons, the police said.

A Columbus city councilman, Michael Mentel, a sponsor of the law, said the rifle association knew months ago that the city was considering a ban, and he called its decision to pull the convention out of Columbus "a ruse" intended to make a national case against gun control.

He added that the rifle association would consider holding a future convention in Columbus if state lawmakers passed a bill invalidating the Columbus ban and pre-empting local governments from passing similar measures. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo already have similar bans in place, gun control advocates said.

"People support common-sense restrictions on guns," said Steve Campbell, Mr. Coleman's campaign manager.

:D

My only available commentary.

when i saw 'military style weapons' i immediately thought of bayonettes and battleaxes. :p

Does the law clearly define what a "military-style" weapon is? It sounds to me like it doesn't, and is just a vague, broadsweeping gesture in an attempt to further restrict guns. I understand the need for gun control, but this really doesn't help a thing.

Does the law clearly define what a "military-style" weapon is? It sounds to me like it doesn't, and is just a vague, broadsweeping gesture in an attempt to further restrict guns. I understand the need for gun control, but this really doesn't help a thing.
Yep, it most likely is. Legal through, at least under the current reigme of constitutional thought.

Does the law clearly define what a "military-style" weapon is? It sounds to me like it doesn't, and is just a vague, broadsweeping gesture in an attempt to further restrict guns. I understand the need for gun control, but this really doesn't help a thing.
This is not unusual for a weapons ban law. One of two things must be true:

1. Either those writing and backing these laws have no idea what they are talking about where weapons are concerned; or ...

2. Those writing and backing these laws are playing on the public's lack of knowledge about the difference between style and function.

Oh noes! You can't own a bazooka in Columbus!

MY RIGHTS! MY PRECIOUS RIGHTS! Oh NOES!!!!!

Soo, they're banning a bunch of underpowered rifles that look mean?

Soo, they're banning a bunch of underpowered rifles that look mean?
Eggg-zactly!

"Många bäckar små blir en stor å." (~ Many small streams become a large river.)

Yep, it most likely is. Legal through, at least under the current reigme of constitutional thought.

Sadly enough. I pictured a bunch of conservative, old, male, white lawmakers mumbling, and making random hand gestures when I thought of them writing this, instead of a group of people with some brains.

This is not unusual for a weapons ban law. One of two things must be true:

1. Either those writing and backing these laws have no idea what they are talking about where weapons are concerned; or ...

2. Those writing and backing these laws are playing on the public's lack of knowledge about the difference between style and function.

Or both. Couldn't you modify the weapon (I don't know if that's legal or not), so it looks less "military-like"? If so, wouldn't that render the law null and void?

Oh noes! You can't own a bazooka in Columbus!

MY RIGHTS! MY PRECIOUS RIGHTS! Oh NOES!!!!!

What's it like to live under a bridge, Mr. Troll?

i take it 'military style weapons' includes potatoe-guns that look like lugers? :p

What's it like to live under a bridge, Mr. Troll?

It's wonderfully free of firearms. What's it like living in a shooting gallery?

"We need anything that puts another tool in our belt to keep weapons out of criminals' hands," said Detective Daniel R. Jones, the officer who was wounded in that firefight and has lost hearing in one ear.

The weapon that injured Detective Jones was a fully automatic AK-47 rifle that was illegal even before Columbus enacted its ban on assault weapons, the police said. Evidently, that tool in your belt wasn't working very well before. This is just making a useless tool bigger and more clumbsy.

This is more about the execution not the content.

Evidently, that tool in your belt wasn't working very well before. This is just making a useless tool bigger and more clumbsy.

This is more about the execution not the content.

I think it's a step in the right direction. No-one should regard firearms as a right.

I think it's a step in the right direction. No-one should have the right to defend him or herself.

Fix'd.

Fix'd.
that's a bit unfair, it's completely possible to defend oneself without firearms, are you denying that firearms are dangerous? no offence intended, but the right to a particular item of property is not the same as the right to a particular pattern of action.

Fine, then. Rather than let the anti-troll troll put words into my mouth, then, here's my amended statement:

I think it's a step in the right direction. No-one should have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Further, no-one should have the right to possess firearms.

Fine, then. Rather than let the anti-troll troll put words into my mouth, then, here's my amended statement:

I think it's a step in the right direction. No-one should have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Further, no-one should have the right to possess firearms.
Soo, basically you're specifically denying short females the ability to properly defend themselves from tall males?

I think it's a step in the right direction. No-one should regard firearms as a right.
Oh? Who said? It's guaranteed in the Constitution. And please don't start with the "but that's only for the military" nonsense. It's well established that the "militia" referred to was comprised of all heads of households and did not refer to a fulltime force.

Its disgusting, the proletariat should be armed by all means available. All the liberals who disagree are just bourgeois apologists and will be shot. Further, all the Conservatives who agree/disagree will be shot come the revolution regardless. :mp5:

Oh? Who said? It's guaranteed in the Constitution. And please don't start with the "but that's only for the military" nonsense. It's well established that the "militia" referred to was comprised of all heads of households and did not refer to a fulltime force.

I said. Duh. I don't give a crap about your Constitution. It's not made of porcelain, it wasn't written by God, and it's laughably - laughably - out of date.

But having you all shoot each other to death works just as well for me. Go for it. Exercise your rights.

Make the world a better place.

Soo, basically you're specifically denying short females the ability to properly defend themselves from tall males?

And I have no idea what this quip apparently refers to.

And I have no idea what this quip apparently refers to.
Without an equalizer, the strong can prey on the weak and unwanted with little resistance. The only truly effective equalizer is a gun.

Without an equalizer, the strong can prey on the weak and unwanted with little resistance. The only truly effective equalizer is a gun.

What the hell does that have to do with being short?

What the hell does that have to do with being short?
On average, especially concerning females, the tall are stronger and less easily incapacitated than the short.

On average, especially concerning females, the tall are stronger and less easily incapacitated than the short.

Prove it.

Prove it.
Well, I was on the wrestling team at my high school for a season. I can testify that people much shorter than me generally couldn't get the leverage required to pull off many of the moves. Also if someone masses more than you they could relatively easily overpower you. Common sense would dictate that this applies to real life with only a few caveats, one being the amount of training a person has.

Prove it.

Did you just ask, in seriousness, that someone prove that an eldery, or simply short and thin female is incapable of defending herself adequately in a physical battle against a much taller, stronger person (Or possibly a group a assailants.)?

Sure, just pile on the descriptors that I didn't. So what's that make it now - I supposedly said that weak, short, old, and what else? Blind? Crippled? Diseased? Mentally retarded? females should be forced into combat with tall, strong, agile, ruthlessly murderous young men?

Or did I miss anything that you inserted into my oral cavity, there?

Do please tell me what else I'm saying, it's so good to have clever people assist me in communicating effectively.

My opinion?

Way to go Columbus, Ohio! More states should take after you! Congrats! :)

My opinion?

Way to go Columbus, Ohio! More states should take after you! Congrats! :)
I actually happen to live in Columbus. I certainly hope the wording of the bill is more specific than 'military style weapons,' since just about any weapon can be used in a 'military style.'

That would mean, probably, that I could be arrested and jailed for my sword collection; or the .50 cal hunting rifle I have in my closet.

Still, it's a comforting thought to know that the only people who will have these weapons are theives and outlaws who make a habit of breaking almost every law under the sun anyway. Makes me feel a lot better about this place.

Gentlemen, ladies, I give you a Horror from Beyond the Seas. The Product of a Socialist Education;

Sure, just pile on the descriptors that I didn't. So what's that make it now - I supposedly said that weak, short, old, and what else? Blind? Crippled? Diseased? Mentally retarded? females should be forced into combat with tall, strong, agile, ruthlessly murderous young men?

Or did I miss anything that you inserted into my oral cavity, there?

Do please tell me what else I'm saying, it's so good to have clever people assist me in communicating effectively.

Let us analyze this bizarre claim;

Ravenshrike made the point that the weak will be at the mercy of the strong without an equalizer, which Ravenshrike believes guns to be. He gave a specific example, that of short women vs. tall men, which is not terribly precise, and certainly doesn't cover all the possibilities, but surely serves the purpose of illustrating his point: That the weak will be preyed on by the strong.

Without an equalizer, the strong can prey on the weak and unwanted with little resistance. The only truly effective equalizer is a gun.

Rather than addressing this claim, Dobbsworld began picking apart the specific example Ravenshrike gave, and then went on to apparently claim that he requires proof that the physically weak are uhm, well, weaker than the physically strong. I retorted with a sardonic statement which plainly illustrated the overall point Ravenshrike was making - that the weak need an equalizer - which prompted the very first quote in this post.

As you can see, Dobbsworld has been more than happy to take issue with a single example of a hundred possible situations, and then to proclaim that words were being put in his mouth - despite the fact that I had only added the possible idea of age, but had also included the same thing Ravenshrike had 'small and thin female' - rather than addressing the point made. (And in addition, if I was putting words into anyone's mouth it was into Ravenshrike's.)

So, I'll keep it simple for ya Dobbsy.

I claim that without firearms, the weak, elderly, sick, crippled, and so forth are easy victims for the able, strong, and callous criminals who plague our societies. What is your response to this claim?

Thank you, thank you. You've been a wonderful audience folks, come back tomorrow! Tell your friends!

My opinion?

Way to go Columbus, Ohio! More states should take after you! Congrats! :)

Well it's good to know you support the confiscation of legally owned private property from Law Abiding Citizens.

You supported the majority in Kelo V New London as well I take it?

Well it's good to know you support the confiscation of legally owned private property from Law Abiding Citizens.

You supported the majority in Kelo V New London as well I take it?
Did you hear about the Lost Liberty Hotel project?

If not, google it at once!

EDIT: here it is: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[/Hijack]

Did you hear about the Lost Liberty Hotel project?

If not, google it at once!

Certainly, I've also pledged to stay a week there if/when it gets built.

I said. Duh. I don't give a crap about your Constitution. It's not made of porcelain, it wasn't written by God, and it's laughably - laughably - out of date.

But having you all shoot each other to death works just as well for me. Go for it. Exercise your rights.

Make the world a better place.
ROFLMAO! What ... EVER!

Here's a thought: why not get Stephie to help you out too? You seem to be losing it. :D

What is your response to this claim?

That you've evidently got far too much free time on your hands?

Sorry, real life calls, guys. Best you try hatching some other way to gang up on ol' Dobbs.

Later.

That you've evidently got far too much free time on your hands?

Sorry, real life calls, guys. Best you try hatching some other way to gang up on ol' Dobbs.

Later.

Begark: 1
Dobbsworld: 0

Did you hear about the Lost Liberty Hotel project?

If not, google it at once!

EDIT: here it is: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[/Hijack]
Now now now, that's illegal, and you know it. (Threatening a court justice because you don't like a decision is a felony)

Thank you, thank you. You've been a wonderful audience folks, come back tomorrow! Tell your friends!


*applauds loudly* :D

Now now now, that's illegal, and you know it. (Threatening a court justice because you don't like a decision is a felony)
What? Did you actually read the article? The Supreme Court just voted to the effect that this is legal.

Now now now, that's illegal, and you know it. (Threatening a court justice because you don't like a decision is a felony)

How is this illegal?

An entraupanuer has made a proposal to increase the profitability of a particular piece of property. As long as he follows all the particulars, it is completely justified under Kelo v New London. There is no 'threat' involved.

Well it's good to know you support the confiscation of legally owned private property from Law Abiding Citizens.

You supported the majority in Kelo V New London as well I take it?

Nah, don't take it personally. I'm Canadian, we are as a whole pretty anti-gun up here. To me I don't even think it should be a right to bear arms. But that's just my opinion. I know a lot of folks from the United States hold the second amendment very near and dear to their hearts. We just don't share that "value" I suppose in Canada. (If you want to call it a value) couldn't think of a better word..lol. ;)

ROFLMAO! What ... EVER!

Here's a thought: why not get Stephie to help you out too? You seem to be losing it. :D


See, another thread another insult. Eutrusca, is it possible, just possible to TRY and go a day without insulting the person you disagree with? Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in your opinion, just don't insult them. is it really that hard for you?

Nah, don't take it personally. I'm Canadian, we are as a whole pretty anti-gun up here. To me I don't even think it should be a right to bear arms. But that's just my opinion. I know a lot of folks from the United States hold the second amendment very near and dear to their hearts. We just don't share that "value" I suppose in Canada. (If you want to call it a value) couldn't think of a better word..lol. ;)

It's not even a 2nd amendment issue exclusively. Columbus has declared that banning these firearms will reduce crime. However, the only weapons it removes (ie confiscates) are those owned by people who have NOT broken the law by legally purchasing and registering them.

It is in response to a killing by a criminal w/ a weapon that was illegal to begin w/.

BTW, are you in an urban or rural environment?

*applauds loudly* :D

Thank you, thank you! Thank you all!

It's not even a 2nd amendment issue exclusively. Columbus has declared that banning these firearms will reduce crime. However, the only weapons it removes (ie confiscates) are those owned by people who have NOT broken the law by legally purchasing and registering them.

It is in response to a killing by a criminal w/ a weapon that was illegal to begin w/.

BTW, are you in an urban or rural environment?

Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. It would just be nice if we lived in a world were needing a gun was not needed. I don't agree with the right to bear arms, but when you put it like that, I certainly can understand why it seems like a fairly silly law.

As for me, I live in Ottawa, Ontario, very urban.

Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. It would just be nice if we lived in a world were needing a gun was not needed. I don't agree with the right to bear arms, but when you put it like that, I certainly can understand why it seems like a fairly silly law.

As for me, I live in Ottawa, Ontario, very urban.

That's the effect that the majority of "gun control" laws consist of in the US.

As to the national attitute on firearms, a large percentage of urban USians are also opposed to firearm ownership. That attitude changes drastically the more rural the area becomes. I've always been pro-gun, however, I went from having a small handgun in the house "just in case" when I lived in the suburbs to purchasing a shotgun and keeping it available when I moved out to the country. Primary reason.. The packs of coyotes that are in the area.

Next time you take a vacation or just travel, talk with some rural Canadian folks on their views of firearms. It may surprise you.

Oh noes! You can't own a bazooka in Columbus!

MY RIGHTS! MY PRECIOUS RIGHTS! Oh NOES!!!!!

Yep. Next they'll be banning books, censoring TV, and stopping people from protesting... oh, wait, they're already doing that. :rolleyes:

EVERY Amendment is as valuable as every other one. In essence, the 1st Amendment = the 2nd Amendment.

Yep. Next they'll be banning books, censoring TV, and stopping people from protesting... oh, wait, they're already doing that. :rolleyes:

EVERY Amendment is as valuable as every other one. In essence, the 1st Amendment = the 2nd Amendment.
Actually, you have a pretty good point. Most human rights do seem to be mutually supportive. Interesting take. :)

See, another thread another insult. Eutrusca, is it possible, just possible to TRY and go a day without insulting the person you disagree with? Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in your opinion, just don't insult them. is it really that hard for you?
Only in "Stephie's World" could telling someone "you seem to be losing it" be considered an insult.

Great job, guys. Taft strikes out again. :rolleyes: Go ahead, hurt Ohio's economy even more; I love chasing away consumer dollars to fit some wacked-out ideology.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is equal to all of the others.

I don't quite understand why it's necessary to punish all gun owners for the actions of a few criminals...but that's just me I suppose...

Only in "Stephie's World" could telling someone "you seem to be losing it" be considered an insult.

So telling someone "you seem to be losing it" based simply on the fact that they disagree with you, is not an insult? Perhaps this is the problem, you don't know what is and what is not an insult?

My opinion?

Way to go Columbus, Ohio! More states should take after you! Congrats! :)

I'd go even further and ban ALL firearms, even if it means "prying them out of their cold, dead fingers" etc.

Probably won't happen as long as Cowboy Dubya is in office, though.

I'd go even further and ban ALL firearms, even if it means "prying them out of their cold, dead fingers" etc.

Probably won't happen as long as Cowboy Dubya is in office, though.

So you want Law Abiding citizens to be defenseless against armed attackers? or do you believe the police should be responsible for your protection?

You also realize that the most loosening of ownership laws occured at the state levels while Clinton was in office, right?

I'd go even further and ban ALL firearms, even if it means "prying them out of their cold, dead fingers" etc.

Probably won't happen as long as Cowboy Dubya is in office, though.

I'm sure Keith Frogson was happy that guns are illegal in the UK!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

It's.Not.The.Item.It's.The.Person. Sheesh!

Go ahead. Keep banning stuff. I can't wait until we're all walking around in armour and the sharpest thing around is a ladel... :rolleyes: ...and everything becomes SO politically correct and inoffensive that there'll be nothing to read, watch, see or do. Because, remember, litigation is just like driving: anyone slower than you is an IDIOT, while anyone faster than you is a MANIAC! And, I assure you, someone out there considers you to be too wonton, and wants to take away your freedom of speech, religion (including not believing in anything at all!), press, etc.

:(

I'm sure Keith Frogson was happy that guns are illegal in the UK!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

It's.Not.The.Item.It's.The.Person. Sheesh!

Go ahead. Keep banning stuff. I can't wait until we're all walking around in armour and the sharpest thing around is a ladel... :rolleyes: ...and everything becomes SO politically correct and inoffensive that there'll be nothing to read, watch, see or do. Because, remember, litigation is just like driving: anyone slower than you is an IDIOT, while anyone faster than you is a MANIAC! And, I assure you, someone out there considers you to be too wonton, and wants to take away your freedom of speech, religion (including not believing in anything at all!), press, etc.

:(


One mad man one sword one kill, one mad man one gun how may dead?

Do i need to remind you of you countries record in keeping your kids safe at school, or perhaps in the work place, the bank or even when they fill up with all so important gas? Geez.

The sad thing is that many (and I'm not shouting names here) people who support the full avaiability of guns are also againstthe idea that people should be regulated as well...perhaps because they might not get a toy as well.

I've worked with guns all my life and all i can say is that many of the view peddled by the pro gun groups just shout "little kid" to me.

Oh and this law is an ass.

So you want Law Abiding citizens to be defenseless against armed attackers? or do you believe the police should be responsible for your protection?

You also realize that the most loosening of ownership laws occured at the state levels while Clinton was in office, right?

I've never owned a gun, and, surprisingly enough, have never been the victim of a violent crime. Most people killed by guns are those involved in domestic disputes with people they know, not by criminals. Had they not owned guns, the disputes may have ended in a fistfight, but the participants would probably have survived.

Will criminals always have guns? Some will, undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them to obtain weapons. Banning all guns would make it a little more difficult for even criminals to obtain them, plus they could be arrested for mere possession of firearms before any crime could be committed.

It's not even a 2nd amendment issue exclusively. Columbus has declared that banning these firearms will reduce crime. However, the only weapons it removes (ie confiscates) are those owned by people who have NOT broken the law by legally purchasing and registering them.

It is in response to a killing by a criminal w/ a weapon that was illegal to begin w/.

BTW, are you in an urban or rural environment?
No weapons are being confiscated or removed, you just can't buy new ones. :rolleyes:

I'm sure Keith Frogson was happy that guns are illegal in the UK!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

It's.Not.The.Item.It's.The.Person. Sheesh!

Go ahead. Keep banning stuff. I can't wait until we're all walking around in armour and the sharpest thing around is a ladel... :rolleyes: ...and everything becomes SO politically correct and inoffensive that there'll be nothing to read, watch, see or do. Because, remember, litigation is just like driving: anyone slower than you is an IDIOT, while anyone faster than you is a MANIAC! And, I assure you, someone out there considers you to be too wonton, and wants to take away your freedom of speech, religion (including not believing in anything at all!), press, etc.

:(

The "freedom" to own a deadly weapon is far from being an essential one. In fact, I think it is one we can definitely do without. To equate it with freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. is ludicrous.

Or did I miss anything that you inserted into my oral cavity, there?


I have one more thing that can be inserted into your oral cavity....................................Wait for it..............................................................................HOW BOUT SOME COMMON SENSE? (not what yo expected? lol)

columbus just likes banning things in general...it's part of the great ohio movement

I have one more thing that can be inserted into your oral cavity....................................Wait for it..............................................................................HOW BOUT SOME COMMON SENSE? (not what yo expected? lol)

Wow, your common sense is so...tiny. Hope I don't inadvertently bite it off at the base.

Anyway, I'm back from the real world. Have you determined just how many deficincies the hypothetical weak woman possesses?

Military-style?!? :confused:

So if I design a semi-automatic assault rifle shaped like an umbrella it would be perfectly legal? Because The Penguin will be thrilled. :D

No weapons are being confiscated or removed, you just can't buy new ones. :rolleyes:
or sell them, or inherit them. And then you have to register them, and no city has ever stopped registering them or confiscated them after that, right?

Military-style?!? :confused:

So if I design a semi-automatic assault rifle shaped like an umbrella it would be perfectly legal? Because The Penguin will be thrilled. :D

As long as it holds less than ten rounds or spews purple gas w/ the bullets.

The "freedom" to own a deadly weapon is far from being an essential one. In fact, I think it is one we can definitely do without. To equate it with freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. is ludicrous.
Tell that to the innocents dying all over the world. Specifically, go to Sudan and make a speech about it to the refugees in the camps there.

One more thread that shows how screwed up some politicians are. There has never been a good argument for gun control and this instance is no exception.

Not a single one of the Sarah Brady myrmidons has ever provided a satisfactory answer to the question:
"How does a law-abiding citizen protect himself when firearms are banned?".

Remember police have no constitutional requirement to protect individual citizens. They only must generally deter crime.

A dumb ass law. Passed for dumb assed reasons , By dumb ass politicians .
So go to the suburbs of Columbus and buy what you want . Or vote the idiots out of office .

Wow, your common sense is so...tiny. Hope I don't inadvertently bite it off at the base.

Anyway, I'm back from the real world. Have you determined just how many deficincies the hypothetical weak woman possesses?

Wow, were you hoping your hiatus to the real world would cause everyone to entirely forgot my earlier post about you?

Anyways, to fail to hold the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property as the paradigm of personal rights shows a highly skewed viewpoint on the entire matter of Human rights.

I've never owned a gun, and, surprisingly enough, have never been the victim of a violent crime. Most people killed by guns are those involved in domestic disputes with people they know, not by criminals. Had they not owned guns, the disputes may have ended in a fistfight, but the participants would probably have survived.

Evidence please. Conjecture, no matter how factually presented, remains conjecture. I'll stand by the Kleck Study until something else comes along though, thanks.

Will criminals always have guns? Some will, undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them to obtain weapons. Banning all guns would make it a little more difficult for even criminals to obtain them, plus they could be arrested for mere possession of firearms before any crime could be committed.

Yes, because making law abiding citizens criminals because of hysterical beliefs about how evil firearms are is sensible.

The "freedom" to own a deadly weapon is far from being an essential one. In fact, I think it is one we can definitely do without. To equate it with freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. is ludicrous.

Is it? Please tell me the difference between a revolver, a copy of "Leaves of Grass", and a Torah when they're sitting on a table in a room. They're all inanimate objects, of no signifigance whatsoever until someone enters the room.

If you can't understand that the right to own what you want, the right to worship (or not) as you please, to read what you want and say what you want are all the same thing, then I feel pretty sorry for you.

I'll go back to my old standby: cars. Cars kill more people than guns every year in the US. Should we have robot-controlled vehicles, so no one can drive drunk, speed, or be an ass? No. Because that is an unreasonable restraint on liberty.
By the same token, so long as the person buying the gun in licensed and is doing so legally, there is no reason why he shouldn't own the gun. Or car. Or half a key of coke. Or Phish CD.

In order to be licensed, I had to go through a background check, be fingerprinted, have passport photos put on file, and pass a safety course. (I also have never been declared insane or been a felon).

If you deny the right to bear arms, you might as well just watch your other rights vanish.

One mad man one sword one kill, one mad man one gun how may dead?

The mad man, if the sane man had a gun.
Most people can't parry anymore, nor to they keep shield around for the errant arrow...

Do i need to remind you of you countries record in keeping your kids safe at school, or perhaps in the work place, the bank or even when they fill up with all so important gas? Geez.


Right. Population of 300 million, you get a nut or two every year. :rolleyes:

The sad thing is that many (and I'm not shouting names here) people who support the full avaiability of guns are also againstthe idea that people should be regulated as well...perhaps because they might not get a toy as well.


I'm fine with REASONABLE regulation:

I think that all states should issue licenses just as with automobiles.

*These will be graded -- pistols and revolvers at the beginning, then "add ons" for full automatics, machine guns, etc, as with CDL or motorcycle endorsements.
*The license shall allow someone to concealed carry in ALL 50 states.
* Blackpowder and shotguns will remain unregulated.
* In return, the license must be renewed every 4 or 5 years, with the same requirements as drivers licenses.
*States may keep their own laws on the books for their own citizens (ie: New Hampshire has almost no gun laws), but without licenses, their residents can't cross state lines with guns.
* The background check made when a gun is bought will remain.
* Straw buyers immediately forfeit their license if their gun is used in a crime.
* Close the loophole: if you're buying ammuntion, you must show your license. If you don't have a license, you shouldn't be buying ammunition, since you can't legally own a gun. (Shotguns & blackpowder excepted, of course).

...that's reasonable enforcement. Bear in mind, that I can right now go about ten miles away and buy a gun smuggled illegally into the country for about $50. $150 if I want something "nice". But as a law abiding citizen, I don't WANT to own an illegal firearm.

I've worked with guns all my life and all i can say is that many of the view peddled by the pro gun groups just shout "little kid" to me.

Oh and this law is an ass.

Some of them, yes.

:)

I worked on Capitol Hill in D.C. when the assault weapon's ban went through Congress in 1994. The Congressional aids working for the bill's proponents were literally scanning through gun magazines trying to find rifles to put on the ban list BASED ON HOW SCAREY THEY LOOKED. Why is this? Because (and it was hardly a secret) the real intent of the ban was to take another step closer to outlawing firearms altogether, and they needed pictures of the guns to show to people and say "look at these scarey rifles that aren't legally sold any longer! guns are scarey! you're safer, thanks to us!" Nevermind the fact that some of those weapons couldn't put a hole through a solid wooden door.

I talked with a guy from Columbus today at the range. The way the law is written is so vague on what is a "assault weapon" is that anything could be consitered one. He said they have tried several times to pass this law and has been rejected due to vagueness. I hope this new ban is struck down.

...I see. To the collectors of those who collect rifles and other military artifacts... Your silence speaks louder than your words.

Its disgusting, the proletariat should be armed by all means available. All the liberals who disagree are just bourgeois apologists and will be shot. Further, all the Conservatives who agree/disagree will be shot come the revolution regardless. :mp5:
Viva la Revolucion!

(OMG am I agreeing with Marxist rehetoric? :eek: ;) )

*puffs*

They should have an amnesty, then. Then when they collect 'em all, they could melt them into an enormous sculpture of a gun. Then everyone could still have their guns. But they'd look really cool.

*puffs again*

And looking cool is what its' all about.

I think they should ban small guns and allow rifles and such. You can't really conceal a AK47, can you?

I think they should ban small guns and allow rifles and such. You can't really conceal a AK47, can you?
Works a lot better as a deterrent.


What about a short-range, low powered ak-47 (please no jokes >.>)?

I'm fine with REASONABLE regulation:

I think that all states should issue licenses just as with automobiles.

*These will be graded -- pistols and revolvers at the beginning, then "add ons" for full automatics, machine guns, etc, as with CDL or motorcycle endorsements.
*The license shall allow someone to concealed carry in ALL 50 states.
* Blackpowder and shotguns will remain unregulated.
* In return, the license must be renewed every 4 or 5 years, with the same requirements as drivers licenses.
*States may keep their own laws on the books for their own citizens (ie: New Hampshire has almost no gun laws), but without licenses, their residents can't cross state lines with guns.
* The background check made when a gun is bought will remain.
* Straw buyers immediately forfeit their license if their gun is used in a crime.
* Close the loophole: if you're buying ammuntion, you must show your license. If you don't have a license, you shouldn't be buying ammunition, since you can't legally own a gun. (Shotguns & blackpowder excepted, of course).

...that's reasonable enforcement. Bear in mind, that I can right now go about ten miles away and buy a gun smuggled illegally into the country for about $50. $150 if I want something "nice". But as a law abiding citizen, I don't WANT to own an illegal firearm.

Not a half bad idea. With the license you can add the characteristics of the gun (eg, how fired bullets look) into a database, and if your gun is found to match up with one used in a crime, and the gun hasn't been declared stolen, then you're responcible for the crime (and better hope that the police can find it).

<snip>I'm fine with REASONABLE regulation:

I think that all states should issue licenses just as with automobiles.

*These will be graded -- pistols and revolvers at the beginning, then "add ons" for full automatics, machine guns, etc, as with CDL or motorcycle endorsements.
*The license shall allow someone to concealed carry in ALL 50 states.
* Blackpowder and shotguns will remain unregulated.
* In return, the license must be renewed every 4 or 5 years, with the same requirements as drivers licenses.
*States may keep their own laws on the books for their own citizens (ie: New Hampshire has almost no gun laws), but without licenses, their residents can't cross state lines with guns.
* The background check made when a gun is bought will remain.
* Straw buyers immediately forfeit their license if their gun is used in a crime.
* Close the loophole: if you're buying ammuntion, you must show your license. If you don't have a license, you shouldn't be buying ammunition, since you can't legally own a gun. (Shotguns & blackpowder excepted, of course).

Time for my "gun license =/= DMV license" article again... :rolleyes:

...that's reasonable enforcement. Bear in mind, that I can right now go about ten miles away and buy a gun smuggled illegally into the country for about $50. $150 if I want something "nice". But as a law abiding citizen, I don't WANT to own an illegal firearm. <snip>And I can build a fully automatic, blow-back operated submachinegun for less than $100. Quite a bit less if I buy the materials in bulk.... "Illegal" simply means "didn't pay the Tax to work in my shop with my own tools...."

It is nice to see that Columbus has been officially chastised by the NRA, by cancelling the 2007 Convention. Give me a break!! :eek:

Actually, it is probably a blessing in disguise for the people of Columbus and the State of Ohio.

It is nice to see that Columbus has been officially chastised by the NRA, by cancelling the 2007 Convention. Give me a break!! :eek:

Actually, it is probably a blessing in disguise for the people of Columbus and the State of Ohio.
How typically knee-jerk of you. Sigh. :rolleyes:

How typically knee-jerk of you. Sigh. :rolleyes:
I see you are back to your old flaming self again?

"Ohio loses it's collective mind" because it banned some guns? Yep, they are all insane.

Enjoy the trollfest.....

When are the anti-gun libs going to realise that guns dont kill people. People kill people. We should ban all people from Columbus. The crime rate would drop to 0. Last time I checked any sharp implement can kill. Should we ban anything and everything that could possibly used as a weapon? If someone wants to kill you they will. With or without a gun. I personally dont have a problem with assualt type weapons. A nice hunting rifle can have the same effect. An assualt rifle sold in the US is not automatic like military style. So it is the same as an average hunting rifle. Really no difference. I say a wholesale boycott of Columbus.

This is the same Columbus, Ohio and Mayor Coleman where a mentally retarded girl was raped, reported it to school officials, and was told not to call 911. When the father showed up and was also told not to call, he, naturally, ignored them and reported the crime. Mayor Coleman refused to condemn the act when it was made public, and basically made a fool of himself over the whole incident. By the way, Ohio Republicans, tremble, because this may be the Democratic nominee for governor of Ohio.

When are the anti-gun libs going to realise that guns dont kill people. People kill people. We should ban all people from Columbus. The crime rate would drop to 0. Last time I checked any sharp implement can kill. Should we ban anything and everything that could possibly used as a weapon? If someone wants to kill you they will. With or without a gun. I personally dont have a problem with assualt type weapons. A nice hunting rifle can have the same effect. An assualt rifle sold in the US is not automatic like military style. So it is the same as an average hunting rifle. Really no difference. I say a wholesale boycott of Columbus.

Actually, British doctors have proposed just that: banning long, pointy kitchen knives. Insanity!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Make mine melted!

Seriously Eutrusca, you've been baned a few times already. I generally agree with you, and have alot of respect for you, but you can a bit intolerent sometimes.

You all assume that it's vague and useless. And no, "I talked to some guy in a range" does not qualify as a cerdible source. Maby it's very percise to ban such things as large clip size, flash surpressers, caliber restrictions, gernade launcher attachments, et cetera. Or, it could be a vague and useless as "military-style" and be utterly pointless and asinine. We don't know, so please don't jump to conclusions based on your political leanings. If your opponents did that, you'd have a oh-so-witty-retort-fest.

Of course it's rediculous to ban all guns outright. But, at the same time, especially in urban environments, people just do not need certain high powered assult rifles, or gernade launchers, or certain modifiactions, for self-defence. Indeed, many times it would be inpractical. It is one thing to be able to defend yourself from the armed burglers who break into your apartment. It is quite another for you to use a high powered weapon where the bullets take out your neibhors 6 units down. Come one, people! The right to defend yourself and the right to any and all weapons are different things.

I agree with a liceneing system like the one preposed by Markreich. Safty courses, background checks, no guns for violent offenders, the like.

This is the same Columbus, Ohio and Mayor Coleman where a mentally retarded girl was raped, reported it to school officials, and was told not to call 911. When the father showed up and was also told not to call, he, naturally, ignored them and reported the crime. Mayor Coleman refused to condemn the act when it was made public, and basically made a fool of himself over the whole incident. By the way, Ohio Republicans, tremble, because this may be the Democratic nominee for governor of Ohio.
And what was Mayor Coleman's part in this issue? Do you have a link?

Please someone show me a case in that a criminal bought a gun legally and used it in a crime . call me insane but are not laws actually supposed to DO something ? Or is it just with this type of moronic "showtime " law that accomplishes nothing that we make exceptions ?

I love how people think that a flash suppressor hides the muzzle flash.
I also love how people think that grenade launchers, such as what come on the Yugo SKS, are more than just a milled piece of metal on the muzzle to allow a rifle-through grenade.
I also like banning bayonet lugs, it really cut down on the incidence of drive by bayonettings in my neighborhood.
I also like it when cops ask if they can look at the collection of bolt-action milsurps on your wall, to see if any have been modified for 'full-auto.'
I love it how semi-auto only rifles are called 'evil machineguns' by people who don't know any better.
I really liked that post someone did about the sideways mounted tritium night-sights for gangsta style shooting. Homeboy nite sights (http://beta.strangecosmos.com/content/item/1163.html)
I also love how crappy and unreliable most $30.00 10rd PC magazines are compared to the $6.00 normal 20 and 30 rd mags.

TAKE A DANGEROUS GUN OFF THE STREETS! BUY IT FOR YOURSELF!
Hey, great advice, I think I am going to do that right now. Now to find that perfect FAL....

I think they should ban small guns and allow rifles and such. You can't really conceal a AK47, can you?

1) Take the AK, and change the stock to a pistol grip.
2) Replace the barrel with one half as long.
3) Replace 30 round magazine with 20 round magazine.

The AK now fits easily in a common briefcase or under a leather jacket.

I worked on Capitol Hill in D.C. when the assault weapon's ban went through Congress in 1994. The Congressional aids working for the bill's proponents were literally scanning through gun magazines trying to find rifles to put on the ban list BASED ON HOW SCAREY THEY LOOKED. Why is this? Because (and it was hardly a secret) the real intent of the ban was to take another step closer to outlawing firearms altogether, and they needed pictures of the guns to show to people and say "look at these scarey rifles that aren't legally sold any longer! guns are scarey! you're safer, thanks to us!" Nevermind the fact that some of those weapons couldn't put a hole through a solid wooden door.

I'm not surprised by this. Every piece of gun control legislation (starting with FDR) has been by Democrats.

Not a half bad idea. With the license you can add the characteristics of the gun (eg, how fired bullets look) into a database, and if your gun is found to match up with one used in a crime, and the gun hasn't been declared stolen, then you're responcible for the crime (and better hope that the police can find it).

Thanks. :)

That's already done in some jurisdictions to varying levels. However, you need the ACTUAL gun for balistics testing (post-crime): keeping a picture/spec sheet in a database is useless: most any perp will know to change the barrel or just run a file to alter it.

I'd not say responsible for the crime, but responsible for the weapon used in the crime.
Example: Your revolver is used in a botched robbery, but it's still found in your house during the investigation. Someone was shot. However, you're seen across the country at the exact same time of the shooting. In this case, you're responsible for a wrongful shooting & failing to secure a firearm, not the robbery.

Time for my "gun license =/= DMV license" article again... :rolleyes:

And I can build a fully automatic, blow-back operated submachinegun for less than $100. Quite a bit less if I buy the materials in bulk.... "Illegal" simply means "didn't pay the Tax to work in my shop with my own tools...."

Yep.
But what does your example show? That most anybody can build an illegal gun? It's the same way I can build a Buick out of parts from a junkyard.

So what? It's not a legal firearm unless it's licensed and goes through inspection -- it must meet the safety requirements for it's type. (Whatever those may be.) I can't drive my "homebuilt" car without going through emissions. Likewise, the submachinegun would need to have no less than two safeties, a certain rate of fire, etc.

We're talking about LEGAL gun ownership here.

Example 2: It's illegal to carry a knife with more than 4" of blade in most areas (except for hunting). I have one I made out of a lawnmower blade -- nearly 12" long. I use it as a yard tool and it never leaves my property. It's reasonable that I don't carry it in public -- fine. It's unreasonable to ban all knives because SOME could be used to kill people.

So... why does a firearms licensing not equate to driver's licensing???

I'd go even further and ban ALL firearms, even if it means "prying them out of their cold, dead fingers" etc.

Probably won't happen as long as Cowboy Dubya is in office, though.

More like, it probably won't happen since 80 million gun owners are pretty tough to take down, regardless the military that tries to do so.

So, for folks defending their rights, you suggest killing them all? Neat.

Not a half bad idea. With the license you can add the characteristics of the gun (eg, how fired bullets look) into a database, and if your gun is found to match up with one used in a crime, and the gun hasn't been declared stolen, then you're responcible for the crime (and better hope that the police can find it).

Two small problems:

1) When the government decides to try to forcibly take away firearms, they have a database of who to hit.

and

2) Ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work. Everytime a bullet is fired, it wears away some metal from the barrel that alters the shape enough so that the next bullet fired won't have the same markings. The only chance you have to make a comparison is if the two bullets are from the same manufacturer and same lot.

It is nice to see that Columbus has been officially chastised by the NRA, by cancelling the 2007 Convention. Give me a break!! :eek:

Actually, it is probably a blessing in disguise for the people of Columbus and the State of Ohio.

Losing $20 million is never a blessing.

Ok, Looks like my post has disappeared....

Now, I collect military rifles. I keep them around the house and about once a month take them to the range. Appart from that I just keep them upstairs, unloaded. I have never consitered my rifles to be offencive or defencive weapons. I just consiter them loud toys. I think it just impressive to have a rifle on the wall that is historically signifigant. I obtained them all legally. Now, my question to the anti-gun people, why is it you feel it nessisary to take a law abiding collector's collection away? I have never received a anwser and I would love for someone to tell me why this is.

Of course it's rediculous to ban all guns outright. But, at the same time, especially in urban environments, people just do not need certain high powered assult rifles,


What is your definition of a high-powered assault rifle? I'm curious. What caliber? What capabilities?


or gernade launchers,


Well, since it's already illegal to own the ammo to go in the launcher, why ban the launcer?


or certain modifiactions,


Which ones? And why does the military get to have advantages that the average citizen gun owner doesn't? We get more practice than they do, so they're not more qualified...


for self-defence. Indeed, many times it would be inpractical. It is one thing to be able to defend yourself from the armed burglers who break into your apartment. It is quite another for you to use a high powered weapon where the bullets take out your neibhors 6 units down. Come one, people! The right to defend yourself and the right to any and all weapons are different things.


I'm sorry, but your lack of ballistics knowledge is showing, and you're not using facts to support your point--you're making stuff up. This is not an attack, but I don't like it when someone guesses at a firearm's capability and decides that no one can have one, so please, if you don't actually know what a gun can do, don't use rhetoric and misinformation to support your position.

Again, what is high-powered? A little .223 that can't reliably make it through a McDonald's plate glass window? That's what the AR-15 (M-16) shoots. A standard hunting rifle (.300 win mag or even as low as a .270) will easily outperform a .223 in a ballistics penetration test.

A 9mm can go through several houses, as the majority of them are constructed today. A layer of drywall, styrofoam, and vinyl siding won't do anything to slow a bullet down. A .22lr round (MUCH weaker than a typical 9mm) will easily go through four walls of a house and exit the building to continue to the next house. Maybe four or five houses would eventually stop the bullet, but hey...a typcial self defense pistol shooting a 9mm round (rather weak by current standards--see the .40S&W, .45ACP, .357SIG, .357magnum, and 10mm) would definitely go to your neighbor's yard and possible to the next, depending on the angle of trajectory.


I agree with a liceneing system like the one preposed by Markreich. Safty courses, background checks, no guns for violent offenders, the like.

Well, Mark and I have had our discussion on that, and I posted my reasoning as to why a licensing system shouldn't be introduced above--government registration just gives the government their "hit first" list.

I'm not surprised by this. Every piece of gun control legislation (starting with FDR) has been by Democrats.

Didn't Bush Sr. ban the AK? I don't recall specifically, but I thought it happened during his "reign".

true, I do not have the knowledge to debate you point for point.

"High powered assult weapons" and "go through six units" were generalizations. Of course low caliber, scary looking guns should be treated as nothing more the low caliber guns.

I don't know what any caliber restrictions would be (I think the regulations should be different for urban and rual areas), because, as you have pointed out, I don't have the proper balistica knowledge to make such a call. But I believe that my point of haveing a gun for self-defence/hunting/collecting/sport is different then unlmited acess to weapons is still valid. People really don't need a high powered, automatic or semi automatic weapons with a 30 round clip that is designed for combat, not hunting or sport. And though it is a breach of civil liberties to ban any type of firearm, I believe that a limited breach in certain situations (urban areas) is justified in the name of safty.

Also, the gun control debate alway ends up "banning guns would stop gun crime" vs. "no it wouldn't, and it's a breach of my rights." No one, on either side, ever puts forth ideas on other ways to stop or lessen gun crime. Come one, we're a smart group of people. Any ideas?

Well, Mark and I have had our discussion on that, and I posted my reasoning as to why a licensing system shouldn't be introduced above--government registration just gives the government their "hit first" list.

I thought you were cool with the individual's licensing, it was the firearms registration that was the bad idea... which I have reflected upon and don't endorse.

Not a half bad idea. With the license you can add the characteristics of the gun (eg, how fired bullets look) into a database
.....$@!##@!!#

As my old home state of Maryland has found out the hard way, ballistics repositories are a bunch of bullshit. Every time you fire a bullet through the gun it's ballistic profile changes slightly. Ergo, the bullet used in the crime is not going to match up with the one in the data base if the original owner either regularly shot it at the range or if the person who used it in the crime was halfway intelligent and switched the barrel out. The only time it's useful is when the cops get to it before the criminal has fired too many rounds through it after he commits the crime. And that assumes they aren't using hollowpoints.

Didn't Bush Sr. ban the AK? I don't recall specifically, but I thought it happened during his "reign".

I rightly don't know, but I know it was included in the Brady bill as signed by President Clinton. ("Avtomat Kalashnikovs")
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

BTW:
Technically, this 1847 revolver was an assault weapon under the Brady Bill:
http://www.emf-company.com/1847-model-walker-revolver.htm

Must contain more than one of these design features:
Magazine outside grip (YES)
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more (YES)
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

I thought you were cool with the individual's licensing, it was the firearms registration that was the bad idea... which I have reflected upon and don't endorse.
Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.

2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.

3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.

4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its lack of registration.

2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)

3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as many say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.

2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.

3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.

4: True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.

2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.

3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it is fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points. :D

Why not just make all guns legal, but ban all forms of ammunition and gun powder. You can have your collections of pretty toys, but people are less likely to get shot.

Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

:) That's exactly my point!! :)

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.

2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.

3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.

4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

:cool:
Though I actually disagree with point 2: I don't think that you should be able to buy a car, boat, airplane, or gun if you can't use it in public (read: are licensed).

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its lack of registration.

2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)

3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

:cool:

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as many say they want.

:cool:

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.

2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.

3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.

4: True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

:cool:
Though I actually disagree with point 2: I don't think that you should be able to buy a car, boat, airplane, or gun if you can't use it in public (read: are licensed).

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.

2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.

3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

1/2. Hmm. This is where I was at awhile ago. The problem is that the DMV registration system may ultimately be compromised to a "go here to take away guns" list, just like it did in Australia. Unless it's somehow tied into the DMV so that if they started confiscating guns, they'd have to take cars, too..
3. :cool:

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Will shotguns and blackpowder would be excepted, just as horse wagons, mopeds and scooters are for vehicles?

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

:cool:

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it is fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points. :D

I don't think that if this would be done it'd be any more onerous than the DMV is for cars, the "can't yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there is a fire", etc. In essence, this would be solid and sensible legislation to deal with the hodge-podge of ineffectual and contradictory STATE laws we have right now, many of which infringe on our liberty.
For example, just try to carry in Massachusettes. :(

Why not just make all guns legal, but ban all forms of ammunition and gun powder. You can have your collections of pretty toys, but people are less likely to get shot.

The minute you stop ALL crime, find a way to keep the deer population in check and find a permanent way to keep the government from becoming an Imperialism, let's talk.

true, I do not have the knowledge to debate you point for point.


It wasn't my point to push that part specifically--It just makes either side of the issue more difficult to see, that's all.


"High powered assult weapons" and "go through six units" were generalizations. Of course low caliber, scary looking guns should be treated as nothing more the low caliber guns.


Unfortunately, those types of generalizations are becoming canon for the general populace because too many people have been using too many generalizations for too long. So you get those that are righteously indignant using "stats" that aren't even real, and people like me blowing a lot of energy to get the facts out to combat that.


I don't know what any caliber restrictions would be (I think the regulations should be different for urban and rual areas), because, as you have pointed out, I don't have the proper balistica knowledge to make such a call. But I believe that my point of haveing a gun for self-defence/hunting/collecting/sport is different then unlmited acess to weapons is still valid. People really don't need a high powered


Any hunting gun is high powered (barring the .22lr).


, automatic


At least in the US, there have been restrictions on those since 1934.


or semi automatic weapons with a 30 round clip that is designed for combat, not hunting or sport.


It's very feasible to use something with a 30 round MAGAZINE (sorry, just one of my pet-peeves) for hunting. The .223 round is legal in Wisconsin to hunt deer with. An AR-15 would be great out to 100-150 yards or so. The 7.62X39 (the AK and SKS round) is just as good--maybe even better under 100 yards. The point of those guns that also happen to have use in the military is to be reliable under adverse conditions and accurate--everything you'd find in a standard bolt-action rifle. The only difference is capacity. If I could sight in the rifle without having to reload before hunting, that can be a time saver.


And though it is a breach of civil liberties to ban any type of firearm, I believe that a limited breach in certain situations (urban areas) is justified in the name of safty.


Why is it justified? What makes the case? Because someone MIGHT, either accidentally or on purpose, shoot someone else? If we make laws for what might happen, we've got a LOT more work to do. You have laws against murder already, right? Why not concentrate on those that acutally do kill others, rather than make laws to regulate the small chance someone would try? It just doesn't make sense to me.


Also, the gun control debate alway ends up "banning guns would stop gun crime" vs. "no it wouldn't, and it's a breach of my rights." No one, on either side, ever puts forth ideas on other ways to stop or lessen gun crime. Come one, we're a smart group of people. Any ideas?

I don't care about gun crime. I care about CRIME. Semantics and tools aren't the things to concentrate on. How about the behavior of perpetrating crimes?

Why not just make all guns legal, but ban all forms of ammunition and gun powder. You can have your collections of pretty toys, but people are less likely to get shot.
Um... I already make a decent black powder & "brown" powder, and cast my own lead bullets. How are you going to stop me?

I thought you were cool with the individual's licensing, it was the firearms registration that was the bad idea... which I have reflected upon and don't endorse.

Okay, gun registration is the first database you look in.

Firearms licensing is the second database you look in. :)

Nope, I don't like much in the way of licensing when the government can use it to go after you.

Vehicle licensing....all that tells the government is that you have a car. I'm not quite as worried about that one.

:) That's exactly my point!! :)
Though I actually disagree with point 2: I don't think that you should be able to buy a car, boat, airplane, or gun if you can't use it in public (read: are licensed). The key defining term is "public" - i.e. an urban/built-up area. Under current statutes, there are no licenses required to purchase and operate any ground vehicle on non-public roads or off-road areas.
My Ranch is not a "public" space. An argument can be made that BLM/BIA land accessible to hunting is "public" in the broad sense, but you don't need a drivers license to operate a car when on a dirt trail (i.e. not on a built-up "public road"), so why should you need a gun license to operate a gun there?

Though I actually disagree with point 2: I don't think that you should be able to buy a car, boat, airplane, or gun if you can't use it in public (read: are licensed). application of current statutes again.

1/2. Hmm. This is where I was at awhile ago. The problem is that the DMV registration system may ultimately be compromised to a "go here to take away guns" list, just like it did in Australia. Unless it's somehow tied into the DMV so that if they started confiscating guns, they'd have to take cars, too..
The point here is, since the only people getting "gun licenses" are those who intend to regularly operate a firearm in a public space, there would be very few people licensed. Carrying a gun is not operating a gun any more than towing a car is operating a car. Remember that unless a LEO sees you display or fire a gun, (both "uses" of a firearm) there is no probable cause to stop you and make sure you are licensed to have one. OTOH, using the "good samaritan" & emergency use standard established for vehicles, use of a firearm by an unlicensed person for the purpose of saving a life would be a mitigating circumstance.
Will shotguns and blackpowder would be excepted, just as horse wagons, mopeds and scooters are for vehicles? Shotguns? no. Black powder is already exempt from most firearms regulation.

I don't think that if this would be done it'd be any more onerous than the DMV is for cars, the "can't yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there is a fire", etc. In essence, this would be solid and sensible legislation to deal with the hodge-podge of ineffectual and contradictory STATE laws we have right now, many of which infringe on our liberty.
For example, just try to carry in Massachusettes. :(
Oh, I agree whole heartedly. I think it would be marvelous legislation. But because it makes gun ownership easier - especially for the high performance stuff - it will never pass, simply because the purpose of Gun Laws is not to be efficient, but to make the prohibition of guns easier and more applicable to more people.

Okay, gun registration is the first database you look in.

Firearms licensing is the second database you look in. :)

Nope, I don't like much in the way of licensing when the government can use it to go after you.

Vehicle licensing....all that tells the government is that you have a car. I'm not quite as worried about that one.

Nah. I'm willing to give up that "possible future infringement" for 50 state carry. It's a reasonable compromise to me.

Nah. I'm willing to give up that "possible future infringement" for 50 state carry. It's a reasonable compromise to me.
Remember too that DMV licenses do not in any way imply ownership of a vehicle, just permission to use one on publicly funded roadways.

Likewise, owning a farm truck that never leaves the farm does not imply DMV licensure.

As long as ownership itself is not tracked, licensure is immaterial until a law is violated.

Nah. I'm willing to give up that "possible future infringement" for 50 state carry. It's a reasonable compromise to me.

And I thought we decided that I was okay with your view. :D

Remember too that DMV licenses do not in any way imply ownership of a vehicle, just permission to use one on publicly funded roadways.

Likewise, owning a farm truck that never leaves the farm does not imply DMV licensure.

As long as ownership itself is not tracked, licensure is immaterial until a law is violated.

Exactly right.

And I thought we decided that I was okay with your view. :D

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/ATA/24819BP.jpg

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/ATA/24819BP.jpg

Hee HEE!

Unfortunately, those types of generalizations are becoming canon for the general populace because too many people have been using too many generalizations for too long. So you get those that are righteously indignant using "stats" that aren't even real, and people like me blowing a lot of energy to get the facts out to combat that.

This is very true, I apologize.



It's very feasible to use something with a 30 round MAGAZINE (sorry, just one of my pet-peeves) for hunting. The .223 round is legal in Wisconsin to hunt deer with. An AR-15 would be great out to 100-150 yards or so. The 7.62X39 (the AK and SKS round) is just as good--maybe even better under 100 yards. The point of those guns that also happen to have use in the military is to be reliable under adverse conditions and accurate--everything you'd find in a standard bolt-action rifle. The only difference is capacity. If I could sight in the rifle without having to reload before hunting, that can be a time saver.

What exactly is the difference between a magazine and a clip? Or is clip not even a gun term, just a common misconseption?

Also, as I have said, urban and rual areas would have different restrictions, much similar to the "in public" clause you were talking about.

There is definate differences between a gun ment for hunting, and one ment for combat. The combat guns generally have a higher rate of fire, and (correct me if I am wrong) carry a larger magazine. I have nothing against hunting rifles with magazines, I hunt with my uncle's rifle with a 10 round magazine, and I also target shot for fun, from time to time. It would be alot easyer for me to do damage in public with a 30 round AK, which is ment to fire quickly and accurately, and can be more easily concealed, then with an equally powerful hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine.



Why is it justified? What makes the case? Because someone MIGHT, either accidentally or on purpose, shoot someone else? If we make laws for what might happen, we've got a LOT more work to do. You have laws against murder already, right? Why not concentrate on those that acutally do kill others, rather than make laws to regulate the small chance someone would try? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Not because someone might, because people do, because people have, because people do every single day, and because people will continue to do so every single day. As I said, this is mostly an inner city problem, in rual, non-public settings, I really don't see any reason to outright ban pretty much any gun. I do agree with a licenceing system, with higher classes for add-ons or different classes of gun, though.

The key defining term is "public" - i.e. an urban/built-up area. Under current statutes, there are no licenses required to purchase and operate any ground vehicle on non-public roads or off-road areas.
My Ranch is not a "public" space. An argument can be made that BLM/BIA land accessible to hunting is "public" in the broad sense, but you don't need a drivers license to operate a car when on a dirt trail (i.e. not on a built-up "public road"), so why should you need a gun license to operate a gun there?

Here, we agree entirly

<snip> What exactly is the difference between a magazine and a clip? Or is clip not even a gun term, just a common misconseption? A "clip" is a metal device for holding ammunition and may or may not be installed in a firearm. These do not have springs and are not part specifically part of the feed mechanisim. There are "stripper clips" used for loading magazines and there are "en-bloc" clips that are fully inserted into a rifle like th M-1 Garand that auto-eject with a characteristic "kapwing" when empty.

Magazines are detachable boxes with integral springs to facilitate auto-loading.

I see, thank you

This is very true, I apologize.


No prob--it's human nature.


What exactly is the difference between a magazine and a clip? Or is clip not even a gun term, just a common misconseption?


Clips are real. Basically, a clip is a little band of metal holding some rounds together, but the rounds are all exposed in some fashion. The last combat rifle for the US to use one of those would be the M1 Garand--had a band around 8 rounds of .30-06 that ejected automatically when the clip was emptied. A magazine is fully enclosed, and you can generally only see one round at the top of the magazine--this is what you see being used with a semi-automatic pistol, the typcial M-16, etc.

And I see Syniks has already explained... :)


There is definate differences between a gun ment for hunting, and one ment for combat. The combat guns generally have a higher rate of fire, and (correct me if I am wrong) carry a larger magazine.


The only difference between a semi-auto rifle originally designed for hunting and one for tactical situations is the capacity. The full autos, those were designed for suppressive fire--yeah, not suitable for hunting. But the semi-autos are great for it.


I have nothing against hunting rifles with magazines, I hunt with my uncle's rifle with a 10 round magazine, and I also target shot for fun, from time to time. It would be alot easyer for me to do damage in public with a 30 round AK, which is ment to fire quickly and accurately, and can be more easily concealed, then with an equally powerful hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine.


I'll disagree. I'd say you could be equally dangerous with either a hunting rifle or an AK. Given the range on the rifle, you could tap someone from a very tall building, or from some other large distance. If you fire too quickly (like you see often in movies and on TV), you're not going to be all that accurate--especially if you're moving around. Plus, a .308 or a .300 win mag will go through a lot more materials (like several doors) before stopping, vs. the less powerfull 7.62x39mm. Dont' get me wrong, the 7.62x39 will still penetrate, but the .308 or .300 win mag will go further, and through more.

I say it's not the gun. It's the person using the gun that is the danger. That's why I concentrate on laws that would punish those that would use tools to harm others, rather than restrict those law-abiding citizens that wouldn't abuse the tools in the first place.


Not because someone might, because people do, because people have, because people do every single day, and because people will continue to do so every single day.


Oh, I agree that it will continue. And it will continue regardless the regulations. It just makes it tougher for those of us who obey the laws of society who would like to be able to exercise our right to defend ourselves effectively.


As I said, this is mostly an inner city problem, in rual, non-public settings, I really don't see any reason to outright ban pretty much any gun. I do agree with a licenceing system, with higher classes for add-ons or different classes of gun, though.


We already have that for fully automatic weapons now. Why more regs? There are problems with firearms on a more regular basis in larger urban settings, but these "massacres" that pop up from time to time seem to keep happening in less urban areas (Columbine for instance).

<snip>We already have that for fully automatic weapons now. Why more regs? There are problems with firearms on a more regular basis in larger urban settings, but these "massacres" that pop up from time to time seem to keep happening in less urban areas (Columbine for instance).Of course, the guns used in Columbine were about as military as pink tutus. The Tec 9 is strictly a toy (a quite fun one) with little defensive and no military value. Too big to be a pistol and too small to be a PDW like an Uzi or HK. Ditto for the Ingram MAC series.

"Machine Pistols" have a place in very specific and limited CQB scenerios. Semi-auto clones of machine pistols are pretty much useless and expensive, but fun. Their cost is generally has a self limiting function when it comes to proliferation. (The Tec-9 was an anamoly in that it was relatively inexpensive - sort of like buying a Mazda Miata instead of a Porche Boxter - cheap but cool to look at.)

So in reality, "military style" wouldn't even apply to Columbine.

A "clip" is a metal device for holding ammunition and may or may not be installed in a firearm. These do not have springs and are not part specifically part of the feed mechanisim. There are "stripper clips" used for loading magazines and there are "en-bloc" clips that are fully inserted into a rifle like th M-1 Garand that auto-eject with a characteristic "kapwing" when empty.

Magazines are detachable boxes with integral springs to facilitate auto-loading.

Magazines can be internal, too, such as the KAR 98 and Springfield 1903- But, I :) would wager that you know this already.

Of course, the guns used in Columbine were about as military as pink tutus. The Tec 9 is strictly a toy (a quite fun one) with little defensive and no military value. Too big to be a pistol and too small to be a PDW like an Uzi or HK. Ditto for the Ingram MAC series.

"Machine Pistols" have a place in very specific and limited CQB scenerios. Semi-auto clones of machine pistols are pretty much useless and expensive, but fun. Their cost is generally has a self limiting function when it comes to proliferation. (The Tec-9 was an anamoly in that it was relatively inexpensive - sort of like buying a Mazda Miata instead of a Porche Boxter - cheap but cool to look at.)

So in reality, "military style" wouldn't even apply to Columbine.

Yup. I just love regs based on the looks of a weapon, don't you? :mad:

Magazines can be internal, too, such as the KAR 98 and Springfield 1903- But, I :) would wager that you know this already.
PTHBLPTH! :p

You should see the magazine for the 16" rifles on the Missouri.... :eek: :D

what you all say makes much sence, I shall think on it.

I still stand by some of my origonal assertions, but I have neither the elequence nor the knowledge to adequitly defend them, so I am, for all intents and porposes, out of this debate.

Thank you, gentalemen and ladies, for a civil and informative exchange of ideas.

PTHBLPTH! :p

You should see the magazine for the 16" rifles on the Missouri.... :eek: :D

I would rather sit in my hole and give them a 10 digit grid coordinate and hear Santa's freight trains whistle overhead.

Well, here's my stance.

1. Its not a constitutional right to own a gun.

Reasoning: Back then, a militia was all that the US really had in for a military force, and outside the developed cities there was no (Western) civilization to be had, and it was for the forming of a militia, a well regulated militia, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. I feel that it should be legal to own any number of handguns with a permit.

Reasoning: Permit would be, you go to an office, apply for a permit, pay the fee, get a quick background check for any violent crimes, and when you go to buy a handgun or ammo for a handgun, the person behind the counter will ask to see the permit. Thats it.

3. I feel that for anything beyond a handgun, a liscence would be required.

This would involve testing and a more involved background check, but wouldn't be that hard.

4. Military weapons, with the exception of show peices, should be banned from private use except for in specific cases.

What these cases are would be up to someone else.

Well, here's my stance.

1. Its not a constitutional right to own a gun.

Reasoning: Back then, a militia was all that the US really had in for a military force, and outside the developed cities there was no (Western) civilization to be had, and it was for the forming of a militia, a well regulated militia, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rebuttal 1: It's not a constitutional right to post your thoughts on the Internet.

Reasoning: Back then, they had no idea that the thoughts of one person could be spread so quickly and easily. It's not actually speech or written text, therefore it's not necessarily free.
(BTW: The US Army was founded in 1777. The Bill of Rights was still in the future.)

2. I feel that it should be legal to own any number of handguns with a permit.

Reasoning: Permit would be, you go to an office, apply for a permit, pay the fee, get a quick background check for any violent crimes, and when you go to buy a handgun or ammo for a handgun, the person behind the counter will ask to see the permit. Thats it.

Rebuttal 2: As there is not yet a licensing system like a DMV, it's a state issue. At this time, there is a hodgepodge of legislation. However, every gun legally bought is subject to an FBI (instant) background check.

3. I feel that for anything beyond a handgun, a liscence would be required.

This would involve testing and a more involved background check, but wouldn't be that hard.

Blackpowder is not regulated, nor are shotguns. Pistols and rifles depend on the state.

4. Military weapons, with the exception of show peices, should be banned from private use except for in specific cases.

What these cases are would be up to someone else.

What's a military weapon? The AR-15 looks and operates just about the same as an M-16. Never mind the multitude of other weapons that crossover: for example, the US military uses Remington shotguns.

Well, here's my stance.

1. Its not a constitutional right to own a gun.

Reasoning: Back then, a militia was all that the US really had in for a military force, and outside the developed cities there was no (Western) civilization to be had, and it was for the forming of a militia, a well regulated militia, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. I feel that it should be legal to own any number of handguns with a permit.

Reasoning: Permit would be, you go to an office, apply for a permit, pay the fee, get a quick background check for any violent crimes, and when you go to buy a handgun or ammo for a handgun, the person behind the counter will ask to see the permit. Thats it.

3. I feel that for anything beyond a handgun, a liscence would be required.

This would involve testing and a more involved background check, but wouldn't be that hard.

4. Military weapons, with the exception of show peices, should be banned from private use except for in specific cases.

What these cases are would be up to someone else.This has to be the strangest mixture of pro/anti gun opinion I've ever seen.

Most anti-gun types hate handguns with a passion but can be "persuaded" to "allow" hunting long guns (rifles/shotguns)

As stated before, real "military" weapons are already so heavilly regulated/taxed/expensive as to be essentially banned.

What's a military weapon? The AR-15 looks and operates just about the same as an M-16. Never mind the multitude of other weapons that crossover: for example, the US military uses Remington shotguns.

How about the Remington 700-based sniper rifles--they're just slightly modified hunting rifles. Legal mods for civilians, I might add.

The mad man, if the sane man had a gun.
Most people can't parry anymore, nor to they keep shield around for the errant arrow...

That's great but your working on the idea that every person would be carrying a gun, if that were true then is that area in Virginia where everyone carries a gun then there would be no stabbings...simple fact is that it doesn't work that way.




Right. Population of 300 million, you get a nut or two every year. :rolleyes:
you know as well as i do that is simply not the case...and does it not worry you that so many of these people manage to get guns so freely.





...that's reasonable enforcement.

In your opinion, i don't see what the differnce between a shot gun is and another gun...they do the same job (abit slightly different ways) so why have one unregulated...don't see the difference.

What i find odd among many people is that at no point on this board have i ever read someone who is pro-gun say that somehow a society which requires you to protect yourself from others is a bad thing and somehow it must change. The only response to gun/violent crime is to have guns more freely avaliable. Which will lead to more accidents because quite frankly it would seem that the average person can't keep a legal gun is a locked box seperate from the ammunition. Of course you could argue that your just living in the real world...however if that's the world you live in excusie me while i don't want to live there.

The right to defend yourself and the right to any and all weapons are different things.

Possibly the most intelligent thing posted in this thread.

That's great but your working on the idea that every person would be carrying a gun, if that were true then is that area in Virginia where everyone carries a gun then there would be no stabbings...simple fact is that it doesn't work that way.

It takes me about seven seconds to draw, aim and fire my .45 from it's holster. (Only done so far on the firing range). It takes the police around 15 minutes to show up. If I can a deranged lunatic who's trying to kill me, I'd much rather he meet his maker than me.

you know as well as i do that is simply not the case...and does it not worry you that so many of these people manage to get guns so freely.

I know what? That there *aren't* a few nuts in any population? Please. I refer you to Monty Python: five crazy Brits and an American. Never mind Tom Baker. If there are thespian nuts in a given population, I'd say it's a GIVEN that there are militant nuts, and worse: militant homocidal nuts.
...which the HOME-GROWN suicide bombers in London prove.
Yet, no one is saying we need to ban backpacks, which is how these bombs are delievered. HMM...

In your opinion, i don't see what the differnce between a shot gun is and another gun...they do the same job (abit slightly different ways) so why have one unregulated...don't see the difference.

I rightly don't know why it is. I can only assume it's because of the limited range and amount of ammunition a shotgun holds. (Usually 2, 3, or 5).

What i find odd who is pro-gun say that somehow a society which requires you among many people is that at no point on this board have i ever read someoneu to protect yourself from others is a bad thing and somehow it must change.

You live in the same society. You just don't have the OPTION of defending yourself from physical harm at a distance.

The only response to gun/violent crime is to have guns more freely avaliable. Which will lead to more accidents because quite frankly it would seem that the average person can't keep a legal gun is a locked box seperate from the ammunition. Of course you could argue that your just living in the real world...however if that's the world you live in excusie me while i don't want to live there.

That's a sticky wicket. I have a secure box where I keep the .45 loaded with a loaded spare magazine. The other guns are stored in a safe seperately from the ammunition. If I wake up and there's someone in the house who isnt' supposed to be there, I can defend my home in about 10 seconds -- the box has a combination lock that must be entered in sequence.

Fair enough. If the terrorists start invading homes and taking hostages instead of blowing up transit stations, what are you going to do? Hope you can hit him with a cricket bat before he and his mates pin you to the ground?

[QUOTE=Markreich]It takes me about seven seconds to draw, aim and fire my .45 from it's holster. (Only done so far on the firing range). It takes the police around 15 minutes to show up. If I can a deranged lunatic who's trying to kill me, I'd much rather he meet his maker than me.



Seven seconds? Thats a goddamned eternity. Carrying in condition one, you should have that puppy out and all seven rounds downrange in about 2.5 seconds.

What i find odd among many people is that at no point on this board have i ever read someone who is pro-gun say that somehow a society which requires you to protect yourself from others is a bad thing and somehow it must change.


That's because most of us have already figured out that it is animal nature. You will always find some agressive member of any species (be it during mating season or whatever). So, instead of antlers or claws, we are trying to protect ourselves with weapons that we as a species have constructed. You will never create an environment where there is no crime, no violence, no mistakes. The real world is an environment that will always have violence and will always necessitate defensive capabilities. To think otherwise is to fool oneself.

Humans are animals. Yes, we have higher brain functions, but there are instincts there, and some of us can fight off the tendencies to fight (most people), while others cannot. Those that would attack another (as opposed to defend against attack) will always be out there. Morals are great things, but the instinctual "might makes right" will always have to be guarded against (the mob, gangs, etc.).


The only response to gun/violent crime is to have guns more freely avaliable. Which will lead to more accidents because quite frankly it would seem that the average person can't keep a legal gun is a locked box seperate from the ammunition.


Probably because you render the defensive weapon useless....


Of course you could argue that your just living in the real world...however if that's the world you live in excusie me while i don't want to live there.

You're probably going to have to get used to it because it's the only one that is here. I'm sorry you don't like it, but all the cerebral thought, energy, and good intentions won't be able to change the standard hard-wiring of the human brain. That's definitely reality.

<quote.What i find odd among many people is that at no point on this board have i ever read someone who is pro-gun say that somehow a society which requires you to protect yourself from others is a bad thing and somehow it must change.And how "must" it change? Through the application (or threat) of government violence? When somebody tells me I "must" do something I get worried.

It is not the fault of Society that criminals exist - except in that were there no society there would be no laws by which we could adjudicate violent aggression as "criminal".

Can society change? It does - but not because someone says it "must". It changes because technology and other social factors change over time. Any "social changes" that happen rapidly happen because of the application of force. (look at Civil Rights) So if you are advocating Authoritarianisim as a panecea for violence...

The only response to gun/violent crime is to have guns more freely avaliable.No, it is simply ONE of many responses. We believe that it is simply a response we have a fundamental right to choose, as you have the fundamental right to NOT choose.

Which will lead to more accidents because quite frankly it would seem that the average person can't keep a legal gun is a locked box seperate from the ammunition.Guns to not cause accidents. Gun storage does not cause accidents. People mishandling guns cause accidents. Pleas lock up your people.

Of course you could argue that your just living in the real world...however if that's the world you live in excusie me while i don't want to live there.Too late. You're here.

Wait... "military-style weapons"? Why aren't they banning all healthy humans above the age of eighteen?

It takes me about seven seconds to draw, aim and fire my .45 from it's holster. (Only done so far on the firing range). It takes the police around 15 minutes to show up. If I can a deranged lunatic who's trying to kill me, I'd much rather he meet his maker than me.

Seven seconds? Thats a goddamned eternity. Carrying in condition one, you should have that puppy out and all seven rounds downrange in about 2.5 seconds.

I like to do something crazy called aim. ;)

7 seconds is pretty fast if you're carrying in an inside-the-pants-belt hoster in the small of your back. It looks like I'm going for my wallet.

You live in the same society. You just don't have the OPTION of defending yourself from physical harm at a distance.

Actually that's where your wrong the average person in Britain (people i talk to general concensus about guns) see no need whatsoever to defend themselves with a fire arm. Basically because Britain does not really have a high level of extream violence, the majority of our violence is the much reported brawling out side of pubs on a Friday/saturday night. Okay it's on the rise and in some areas of the Britain the murder rate can be high. But for the average person in Britain owning a gun just would not be considered.

The same cannot be true of the USA


Fair enough. If the terrorists start invading homes and taking hostages instead of blowing up transit stations, what are you going to do? Hope you can hit him with a cricket bat before he and his mates pin you to the ground?

See this is what i love about some of the posts here, somehow when attacked your just going to jump up an defend yourself like the hero kinda stuck between a comic and your imagination. The likely hood of terroirsts doing this is minimal but this scenario appeals to your immature nature.

Like i said i've worked with guns all my life and the reality of a well trained troop in combat is totally different to their imagination.

And how "must" it change? Through the application (or threat) of government violence?


Why the government? Why does it always come down to that big old beast. :rolleyes:

No one mentioned the government, actually i read this little quote "if you want change, you have to be the change" that's what it boils down to. if you want a more peaceful society, you have to make that first step yourself.

I hate the ways kids are treaded in Britain, but the way i deal with it is that i talk to them and think about them. Care you could say.

Can society change? It does - but not because someone says it "must". It changes because technology and other social factors change over time

Like i said it's not because someone or something says it much it's because people by and large feel that way, that small movement turns into a larger movement which changes things. Like the freedom in the India.

But again your always comming back to the idea that governments tell you what to do.

One track mind?

Guns to not cause accidents. Gun storage does not cause accidents. People mishandling guns cause accidents. Pleas lock up your people.


Duh if you look what i wrote you would realise that we actually agreed on that one. But if everyone is having a gun there is more scope for accidents...hmm maybe i have to spell everything out for you.

That's because most of us have already figured out that it is animal nature. You will always find some agressive member of any species (be it during mating season or whatever). So, instead of antlers or claws, we are trying to protect ourselves with weapons that we as a species have constructed. You will never create an environment where there is no crime, no violence, no mistakes. The real world is an environment that will always have violence and will always necessitate defensive capabilities. To think otherwise is to fool oneself.


Obviously, however to accept violence is somehow to say that's right. Once you do that they i think your on a slippery slope.

The thing that seperates humans from most animals is something called civilisation. Now we can argue about what makes up a civilisation however you don't need to be wizz in history to see that by and large civilisations do slowly get better, we become less violent, more tolerent. We don't for example force Jews out of our country like we used to mrders rates are lower.

But as i said in a previous post, you have a choice, you can look at what you have and say "that's okay, or you can look at it and say i want to change it" many psoters here seem happy with the situation as long as they have the choice to own a gun.

Nealry every coutry in the world looks at the USA adn wonders about this mentality,most countries try to solve such problems. But it would seem for you guy's as long as you have the choice to blow someone else's head off and they yours....you live in the land of the free.

Obviously, however to accept violence is somehow to say that's right. Once you do that they i think your on a slippery slope.


Isn't it right? Suns explode, meteors impact, felines hunt and kill, cows shred plants. Violence is everywhere. To think we're "better" than that is a bit....presumptuous.


The thing that seperates humans from most animals is something called civilisation. Now we can argue about what makes up a civilisation however you don't need to be wizz in history to see that by and large civilisations do slowly get better, we become less violent, more tolerent. We don't for example force Jews out of our country like we used to mrders rates are lower.


Do we become less violent? Or do we just suppress it for a while, until it gets to the breaking point--ending up with wars?


But as i said in a previous post, you have a choice, you can look at what you have and say "that's okay, or you can look at it and say i want to change it" many psoters here seem happy with the situation as long as they have the choice to own a gun.


If there really was a way to get rid of violence and oppression, as well as put the predator/prey balance back, and guarantee that it would stay that way, I'd let the guns go. However, I know humans, and what I ask for is impossible, so I choose to be prepared instead.


Nealry every coutry in the world looks at the USA adn wonders about this mentality,most countries try to solve such problems. But it would seem for you guy's as long as you have the choice to blow someone else's head off and they yours....you live in the land of the free.

Nifty perception. That's your media and propaganda machines rolling. And they've done a great job--guns are the evil, they are to blame....give me a break. Inanimate objects aren't the problem. Behavior is the issue.

I don't go looking to blow anyone's head off. I have yet to shoot someone--and I hope I never do. I don't really care what most people's perceptions are. I care what happens to me and those I care about.

The US is no longer the land of the free anymore. We live in an increasingly welfare-ridden, nanny state, where those elected elites think that they know better because they won a popularity contest. They want power. They want control of others.

I will say this: I'm not going to allow those that are afraid of and vilify inanimate objects because they refuse to acknowledge what the real weapon is (the human) to tell me how to be prepared for those situations I care to mitigate against for myself and those I care about. I will NOT be ruled.

Me owning a gun hasn't hurt anyone. Until that time comes, no one has a say if I keep it or not. If they're scared, that's not my problem. It's theirs to deal with.

I like to do something crazy called aim. ;)

7 seconds is pretty fast if you're carrying in an inside-the-pants-belt hoster in the small of your back. It looks like I'm going for my wallet.

I carry my 1911 IWB too, and I can still pop it out, step into a Weaver stance, knock that thumb safety off and be on target in about 2.5. It isn't hard. Work on it! :)

I carry my 1911 IWB too, and I can still pop it out, step into a Weaver stance, knock that thumb safety off and be on target in about 2.5. It isn't hard. Work on it! :)

I either don't have that amount of paranoia, don't have that much time, or need to go on a diet. Maybe all three... :)

Actually that's where your wrong the average person in Britain (people i talk to general concensus about guns) see no need whatsoever to defend themselves with a fire arm. Basically because Britain does not really have a high level of extream violence, the majority of our violence is the much reported brawling out side of pubs on a Friday/saturday night. Okay it's on the rise and in some areas of the Britain the murder rate can be high. But for the average person in Britain owning a gun just would not be considered.

Which is fine. The average American doesn't own a gun, either. But one MUST have the right to defend oneself.

The same cannot be true of the USA

So you see that America needs guns. Thanks.

See this is what i love about some of the posts here, somehow when attacked your just going to jump up an defend yourself like the hero kinda stuck between a comic and your imagination. The likely hood of terroirsts doing this is minimal but this scenario appeals to your immature nature.

There are times to run and times to fight.

Heh. You're so cute when you're being dismissive. This sort of thing DOES happen.
Yes, I grant the odds are low. But what were the odds of a couple of planes flying into the WTC? Poison gas being used in the Tokyo subway?

Example: There were 16 examples of home invasion in St. Claire County, Illinois in 1998. That's hardly a high-crime zone.
http://www.sao.co.st-clair.il.us/charge98.asp

Like i said i've worked with guns all my life and the reality of a well trained troop in combat is totally different to their imagination.

Ayep. I'm not talking about combat, troops or any such things. I have a human right to defend myself, home and family from any assault if necessary. That's all.

Which is fine. The average American doesn't own a gun, either. But one MUST have the right to defend oneself. Just personally i think everyone has the right the right to live in a society where they don't need ot protect themselves. That's real freedom...now of course we both know that's not going to happen, but the moment the average individual needsfree the need to arm themselves to have that freedom i would suggest that something is very wrong...with either their country or their mentality.



So you see that America needs guns. Thanks. Americans acutally don't really need guns to defend themselves becuase the chances of someone being attacked are minimal. What i would say is that many people feel they need to arm themselves and that feeling seems ot have very little to do with the acutally threat from crime.





Heh. You're so cute when you're being dismissive. This sort of thing DOES happen.
Yes, I grant the odds are low. But what were the odds of a couple of planes flying into the WTC? Poison gas being used in the Tokyo subway?

So we should all carry parachuets and wear gas masks please......like i said the chances of any of your scenarios acutaly happening to your are minimal...




Ayep. I'm not talking about combat, troops or any such things. I have a human right to defend myself, home and family from any assault if necessary. That's all.

The moment you draw your weapon, your are entering a combat situation. Your heart will be pumping and you won't be thinking. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or a psycopath defend yourself in your home is the same a sin combat.

You do have the right to defend yourself, but I've yet to see you say that a society where you feel the need to defned yourself with a gun is wrong. Do you think it's right that that should be the case?

Nifty perception. That's your media and propaganda machines rolling. And they've done a great job--guns are the evil, they are to blame....give me a break. Inanimate objects aren't the problem. Behavior is the issue.

I don't go looking to blow anyone's head off. I have yet to shoot someone--and I hope I never do. I don't really care what most people's perceptions are. I care what happens to me and those I care about.

The US is no longer the land of the free anymore. We live in an increasingly welfare-ridden, nanny state, where those elected elites think that they know better because they won a popularity contest. They want power. They want control of others.

I will say this: I'm not going to allow those that are afraid of and vilify inanimate objects because they refuse to acknowledge what the real weapon is (the human) to tell me how to be prepared for those situations I care to mitigate against for myself and those I care about. I will NOT be ruled.

Me owning a gun hasn't hurt anyone. Until that time comes, no one has a say if I keep it or not. If they're scared, that's not my problem. It's theirs to deal with.

Hmmm let me see you say I'm repeating the left wing gosple but all i can see is pro-gun retoric that I've seen a 100 time before. After that all i read is ME ME ME ME ME. Do you care about anyone else.

Like i said there are some in the pro-gun camp that are just like little kids, aslong as they have their toy that's all the matters.

Is it? Please tell me the difference between a revolver, a copy of "Leaves of Grass", and a Torah when they're sitting on a table in a room. They're all inanimate objects, of no signifigance whatsoever until someone enters the room.

If you can't understand that the right to own what you want, the right to worship (or not) as you please, to read what you want and say what you want are all the same thing, then I feel pretty sorry for you.

I'll go back to my old standby: cars. Cars kill more people than guns every year in the US. Should we have robot-controlled vehicles, so no one can drive drunk, speed, or be an ass? No. Because that is an unreasonable restraint on liberty.
By the same token, so long as the person buying the gun in licensed and is doing so legally, there is no reason why he shouldn't own the gun. Or car. Or half a key of coke. Or Phish CD.

In order to be licensed, I had to go through a background check, be fingerprinted, have passport photos put on file, and pass a safety course. (I also have never been declared insane or been a felon).

If you deny the right to bear arms, you might as well just watch your other rights vanish.

Your first point is nonsensical. I've never heard of anyone killed by "Leaves of Grass" (although perhaps Whitman SHOULD have killed for writing it) or the Torah or a CD.

Yes, more people are killed by cars than guns, but it's rarely premeditated and usually preventable by defensive driving. Plus the primary purpose of the car is not use as a murder weapon. Guns have one purpose only: to kill.

Hmmm let me see you say I'm repeating the left wing gosple but all i can see is pro-gun retoric that I've seen a 100 time before. After that all i read is ME ME ME ME ME. Do you care about anyone else.

Like i said there are some in the pro-gun camp that are just like little kids, aslong as they have their toy that's all the matters.

Great point. Except their little "toy" is deadly.

Hmmm let me see you say I'm repeating the left wing gosple


Actually, I was saying that you're BELIEVING the propaganda, not just repeating.


but all i can see is pro-gun retoric that I've seen a 100 time before.


Hey, you can be as unprepared for situations as you like. Me, I hope I never have to face a situation in which having a firearm would help. But should it actually occur, I'll have it with me. It's not rhetoric--people are assaulted daily. If I have a weapon to help in my defense, the odds that I make it out alive go up.


After that all i read is ME ME ME ME ME.


Then you missed a few words...


Do you care about anyone else.


I care about several others, yes. You seem to think that by simply existing that someone automatically gains ultimate respect. Not from me. It requires time and proof. Sure, I afford a minimum level of respect until someone proves they don't deserve it, but no, strangers aren't at the same level as those I care about.


Like i said there are some in the pro-gun camp that are just like little kids, aslong as they have their toy that's all the matters.

Ah, nice....well, if we're going along those lines--Don't play the maturity card when you can't even stand on your own without your government there to "save" you.

A gun is nowhere near a toy. It is one of several tools used for self-defense and the preservation of one's own rights.

You're the one that has determined that an inanimate object is "bad". That's a bit irrational.

It's amazing that those who are trying to be all "mature" are the ones that start calling everyone babies, when they're just covering up for their fears.

Great point. Except their little "toy" is deadly.

Not a great point actually. What's happened here is that just because I wouldn't bow to Ianarabia's "logic", I have been deemed an immature child, when in actuality, that's the exact "sour grapes" tactic a child would use. "I can't convince them, I must degrade them instead."

Interesting.

Not a great point actually. What's happened here is that just because I wouldn't bow to Ianarabia's "logic", I have been deemed an immature child, when in actuality, that's the exact "sour grapes" tactic a child would use. "I can't convince them, I must degrade them instead."

Interesting.

I think it's more a "cowboy mentality" than anything else, but that's also an immature attitude. I don't mind adults having "toys," be it a Corvette, a P.C., an iPod, cell phone, whatever, but playing cowboys and Indians with real guns is not only immature, it's dangerous.

I think it's more a "cowboy mentality" than anything else, but that's also an immature attitude. I don't mind adults having "toys," be it a Corvette, a P.C., an iPod, cell phone, whatever, but playing cowboys and Indians with real guns is not only immature, it's dangerous.

Oh my word. You think I'm PLAYING? That couldn't be further from the situation at hand. I am definitely not playing at being a cowboy or a hero of any sort.

I am responsible for my safety--the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that police forces are not responsible for the safety of individuals. That leaves me to protect myself.

Therefore, since I am the responsible party in my safety, I'm taking steps like any responsible adult would, to mitigate as many potential threats as I can by avoiding certain situations. However, should any of my mitigations fail, I want to be prepared to physically defend myself as a backup.

Too many think gun owners go out and look for trouble, like some sort of vigilante. That perception came from somewhere--I can guarantee it didn't come from firsthand experience knowing a gun owner. We're not movie folks. We're normal human beings.

I think it's more a "cowboy mentality" than anything else, but that's also an immature attitude. I don't mind adults having "toys," be it a Corvette, a P.C., an iPod, cell phone, whatever, but playing cowboys and Indians with real guns is not only immature, it's dangerous.

Thank you oh almighty one for your permission to have toys .

Just personally i think everyone has the right the right to live in a society where they don't need ot protect themselves. That's real freedom...now of course we both know that's not going to happen, but the moment the average individual needsfree the need to arm themselves to have that freedom i would suggest that something is very wrong...with either their country or their mentality.

I'm with you 100%, barring the arming.
I own guns for various reasons, not the least of which is to do my part in killing off the insanely high deer population. http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/wilton_deer_committee_findings_a.htm

However, of all the reasons I own guns, it's not because I feel a need to own them to be free. The things you own end up owning you. (Yes, it's stolen from Fight Club, but it's true.) Anyway: I own them because I USE them. And I rarely carry unless I know I know I'm not going to be consuming alcohol *and* am going to be in a not-so-great area.

Americans acutally don't really need guns to defend themselves becuase the chances of someone being attacked are minimal. What i would say is that many people feel they need to arm themselves and that feeling seems ot have very little to do with the acutally threat from crime.

That depends. Most crimes go unreported. Yes, over a population of 300 million, your odds are good.
But for a counter-example: My friend works at a bank, and he would pick up shifts in different branches for the overtime. He had a knife held to his thoat IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, in the middle of a parking lot in Bridgeport, Connecticut at 9AM on a Saturday.

So we should all carry parachuets and wear gas masks please......like i said the chances of any of your scenarios acutaly happening to your are minimal...

Of course they are. Odds are also very much against you dying of peanuts, yet they no longer serve them on flights.

The moment you draw your weapon, your are entering a combat situation. Your heart will be pumping and you won't be thinking. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or a psycopath defend yourself in your home is the same a sin combat.

The moment I draw my weapon, I'm shooting. It never leaves the holster otherwise.

You do have the right to defend yourself, but I've yet to see you say that a society where you feel the need to defned yourself with a gun is wrong. Do you think it's right that that should be the case?

I really don't see what you're getting at. I don't consider a gun to be any different from a knife, a sword, or a bat. Violence is best avoided, but if it IS necessary, then it's best to win. If I never draw my gun, I'll be a happy man.

I have carried for 25 years and have yet to kill anyone . I have only had to use my weapon twice . Both times to protect myself from someone else with a gun . I am still alive . They are both in jail and walk funny. all the others that would have been hurt by them will never be ...unless they are also in prison . When the world changes around me and weapons are no longer required I will be happy but will still enjoy target shooting and hunting . But more then likely before it happens I will be long dead . keep your personal choice to yourself and do not try to impose them on others . You will live with less stress and people will be less inclined to kick your ass ;)