NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?

Shh... it's the bed time story that the NRA likes to tell all the little tykes. It upsets them when you point out the very real problems with it.

Shh... it's the bed time story that the NRA likes to tell all the little tykes. It upsets them when you point out the very real problems with it.

I have two honest questions here:

1) Why must it be that owning guns must just be for anti-government purposes in your mind?

2) What do you propose as the alternative?

not voting people like bush in office would probably be more efficient.

I have two honest questions here:

1) Why must it be that owning guns must just be for anti-government purposes in your mind?
Where did I say that gun ownership is for anti-government purposes only? I only said that the idea of needing a gun to overthrow the government is a very silly reason to need a gun.

2)What do you propose as the alternative?
Alternative to what?

Where did I say that gun ownership is for anti-government purposes only? I only said that the idea of needing a gun to overthrow the government is a very silly reason to need a gun.

I'll give you most of this one. The idea of a government oppression that people could openly identify and avert is ridiculous. Surely they'd just sneak over everyone's heads.


Alternative to what?

Current situation. (Legal guns in places, illegal guns spread around almost anywhere you'd want one)

translated for US politics:

The thing that is wrong with the freedom of the saying is that an armed American subject is even more dangerous to America!

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?
A "real life" case would be the incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho against Randy Weaver. I`m not going to endorse or vilify Mr. Weavers politics, he is an avowed "separatist". Mr. Weaver was entrapped by the BATF for alledgedly cutting a shotgun barrel off to below the "legal" 16 1/2 inches in length. I`m not going to go on about all the details as they are available for anyone who would want to research them. After a stand-off at the Weaver home, Weaver`s wife and eldest son were killed by Federal Agents. Mr. Weaver was arrested and tried. Mr. Weaver filed suit against the U.S. Gov`t. for the wrongful deaths of his family and won. Had mr. Weaver not defended himself, he would have very likely shared the fate of his wife and son.

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?According to Grace Slick, in 1994 the police tried to enter her house without a warrant. She kept them at bay with an unloaded shotgun.

A "real life" case would be the incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho against Randy Weaver. I`m not going to endorse or vilify Mr. Weavers politics, he is an avowed "separatist". Mr. Weaver was entrapped by the BATF for alledgedly cutting a shotgun barrel off to below the "legal" 16 1/2 inches in length. I`m not going to go on about all the details as they are available for anyone who would want to research them. After a stand-off at the Weaver home, Weaver`s wife and eldest son were killed by Federal Agents. Mr. Weaver was arrested and tried. Mr. Weaver filed suit against the U.S. Gov`t. for the wrongful deaths of his family and won. Had mr. Weaver not defended himself, he would have very likely shared the fate of his wife and son.

But if he hadn't had the gun his family would still be alive.

According to Grace Slick, in 1994 the police tried to enter her house without a warrant. She kept them at bay with an unloaded shotgun.

Well having heard "We built this city on rock and roll" I side with the police on this one.

The way I see it, there is what the idea originally meant, and the reality of the situation now.

I believe that the spirit of the laws promting an armed citizenry in the USA was to protect the citizenry against what was felt to be the most important threat at the time: government power. During the 18th century, there were far less checks and balances to government power. Violence was seen as the final resort of the populace when confronted with tyranny.

Things have changed in the USA since then in two important ways: government military power is far more effective, and there are more mechanisms for rendering the government accountable to the people. Consequently, in the context of the USA, the possesion of a firearm for this purpose is somewhat obsolete.

However, many other countries around the world are in a different situation, so I would not say that such obsolescence is universal. I think many Latin American and African citizens could use a similar type of protection from their governments.

Current situation. (Legal guns in places, illegal guns spread around almost anywhere you'd want one)
Licenses. Go through gun safety classes, show up at the new equivalent of a DMV and show off your skills, get your license. I'd stagger the renewal dates of course, first termer get a 2 year license. 1st renewal without any incidents, 5 years. 2nd renewal without, 10 years. I'll even say that the license should be free. And toss in a permit system for underage folks who use under the care of a fully licensed adult, other than that, let the states decide the level of skills needed for the range of weapons and permits (Think drivers license).

Every time you buy a gun, got to flash your license. If a gun dealer is caught not checking them, he loses his business. You buy a gun without a license, it's a federal felony, automatic jail time (How much... haven't decided yet). Use a gun that isn't yours in a crime, same. Use a gun purchased without a license, same. And if a licensed person does commit a crime, license revoked and he or she will never get it back.

Licenses. Go through gun safety classes, show up at the new equivalent of a DMV and show off your skills, get your license. I'd stagger the renewal dates of course, first termer get a 2 year license. 1st renewal without any incidents, 5 years. 2nd renewal without, 10 years. I'll even say that the license should be free. And toss in a permit system for underage folks who use under the care of a fully licensed adult, other than that, let the states decide the level of skills needed for the range of weapons and permits (Think drivers license).

Every time you buy a gun, got to flash your license. If a gun dealer is caught not checking them, he loses his business. You buy a gun without a license, it's a federal felony, automatic jail time (How much... haven't decided yet). Use a gun that isn't yours in a crime, same. Use a gun purchased without a license, same. And if a licensed person does commit a crime, license revoked and he or she will never get it back.

If only that would work...

Licenses. Go through gun safety classes, show up at the new equivalent of a DMV and show off your skills, get your license. I'd stagger the renewal dates of course, first termer get a 2 year license. 1st renewal without any incidents, 5 years. 2nd renewal without, 10 years. I'll even say that the license should be free. And toss in a permit system for underage folks who use under the care of a fully licensed adult, other than that, let the states decide the level of skills needed for the range of weapons and permits (Think drivers license).

Every time you buy a gun, got to flash your license. If a gun dealer is caught not checking them, he loses his business. You buy a gun without a license, it's a federal felony, automatic jail time (How much... haven't decided yet). Use a gun that isn't yours in a crime, same. Use a gun purchased without a license, same. And if a licensed person does commit a crime, license revoked and he or she will never get it back.

I could get behind such a system, provided that people aren't deprived of this license without a compelling reason.

1) If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
2) One of the first things an authoritarian govt. does is disarm the people.

I could get behind such a system, provided that people aren't deprived of this license without a compelling reason.
No, the ONLY (And I admit right off the bat that this is a fairy tale world that works because I Say So) way to lose a license is to either A. Be convicted of a crime, or B. Show gross negligence in handling your firearm.

No, the ONLY (And I admit right off the bat that this is a fairy tale world that works because I Say So) way to lose a license is to either A. Be convicted of a crime, or B. Show gross negligence in handling your firearm.

I'd think that something along the lines of being diagnosed with a mental illness that makes you dangerous to yourself or others should also disqualify you, but other than that we're in agreement.

If only that would work...
Well, you DID ask what I would do if I could. :D

Honestly I see no real problem with the ownership of firearms by most people. Really, I don't. I have no qualms about it at all. I'd just like to get them out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them and make sure that those who do know what the hell it is they are doing.

Back to the original point of the thread though (remember that?), I just feel that there are far, far better reasons for firearms ownership (Sport, family tradition, why not?, etc.) than 'I need to defeat my government in one-on-one combat'.

1) If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
2) One of the first things an authoritarian govt. does is disarm the people.
Blimey. That means that for almost all of its history, my country has been ruled by authoritarian government.

I learn something every day...

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US?

Only from other Americans. *snickers and points to civil war history records*
What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?

Do the criminals versus police shootouts count? :D

A "real life" case would be the incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho against Randy Weaver. I`m not going to endorse or vilify Mr. Weavers politics, he is an avowed "separatist". Mr. Weaver was entrapped by the BATF for alledgedly cutting a shotgun barrel off to below the "legal" 16 1/2 inches in length. I`m not going to go on about all the details as they are available for anyone who would want to research them. After a stand-off at the Weaver home, Weaver`s wife and eldest son were killed by Federal Agents. Mr. Weaver was arrested and tried. Mr. Weaver filed suit against the U.S. Gov`t. for the wrongful deaths of his family and won. Had mr. Weaver not defended himself, he would have very likely shared the fate of his wife and son.

I just want to point out an error in your post. The minimum legal barrel length for a shotgun is 18" (without getting an NFA tax stamp). A rifle's minimum legal barrel length is 16" (again, without an NFA stamp).

I'd think that something along the lines of being diagnosed with a mental illness that makes you dangerous to yourself or others should also disqualify you, but other than that we're in agreement.
Sorry, forgot to add that part in, but, yes, that too.

1) If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
2) One of the first things an authoritarian govt. does is disarm the people.

Not this again...

I believe that the spirit of the laws promting an armed citizenry in the USA was to protect the citizenry against what was felt to be the most important threat at the time: government power. During the 18th century, there were far less checks and balances to government power. Violence was seen as the final resort of the populace when confronted with tyranny.

The same held true in Europe, but when things got more civilized in Europe, gun control laws came into effect, and personally I think they work better than whatever mockery of law USA has in place.

Then again, if I could get, keep and use an assault rifle for rabbit hunting legally, I'd probably just go out and shoot everyone in sight before shooting myself, too. :rolleyes:

1) If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
2) One of the first things an authoritarian govt. does is disarm the people.
Not this again...

Hey, at least one little NRA kid has successfully been brainwashed. :p

Well, you DID ask what I would do if I could. :D

That I did. :D

Honestly I see no real problem with the ownership of firearms by most people. Really, I don't. I have no qualms about it at all. I'd just like to get them out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them and make sure that those who do know what the hell it is they are doing.

I can support this.

Back to the original point of the thread though (remember that?), I just feel that there are far, far better reasons for firearms ownership (Sport, family tradition, why not?, etc.) than 'I need to defeat my government in one-on-one combat'.

Because by the time you now your government is in need of being overthrown, a gun won't help too much. Especially not a shotgun.

However, that does not mean that you won't need a gun period.

The way I see it, there is what the idea originally meant, and the reality of the situation now.

I believe that the spirit of the laws promting an armed citizenry in the USA was to protect the citizenry against what was felt to be the most important threat at the time: government power. During the 18th century, there were far less checks and balances to government power. Violence was seen as the final resort of the populace when confronted with tyranny.

Things have changed in the USA since then in two important ways: government military power is far more effective, and there are more mechanisms for rendering the government accountable to the people. Consequently, in the context of the USA, the possesion of a firearm for this purpose is somewhat obsolete.

However, many other countries around the world are in a different situation, so I would not say that such obsolescence is universal. I think many Latin American and African citizens could use a similar type of protection from their governments.
That makes sence. I was only thinking in context of USA today. It does make sance when one considers times before there where modern checks and balances to government power or other parts of the world that still don't have those checks.

Because by the time you now your government is in need of being overthrown, a gun won't help too much. Especially not a shotgun.
Exactly.

However, that does not mean that you won't need a gun period.
Agreed.

See? I wasn't linking guns to anti-government purposes only. ;)

How much has the US effort in Iraq been hampered by the armed insurgency?

Much of what they've done is with bombs, sure, but the fact that they're armed has also contributed to their ability to defy our effort there.

If the United States military ever decided to turn on the American people, it would be a lot harder for them to achieve tyranny if they're going against an armed populace.

The likelihood of this happening is, of course, remote at best. Be that as it may, the fact that so many here own firearms is just one more reason to not ever invade America.

The tyranny-prevention angle is, of course, not the main reason we have (or should have) the right to bear arms.

I'll list a couple of the more obvious ones:

1) The right to defend oneself and one's family and/or property from would-be perps. If someone breaks into your house, do you really trust the cops to get there in time to protect you?

2) Recreational use -- hunting, target-shooting, etc. Guns can be fun to use.

3) Collecting -- guns could (I suppose) be seen as collectibles and, as such, are investments.

My view has always been that if you want to own a gun you are probably not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one. You should have to prove that you need a gun.

Why should owning a firearm be based on need? Why should owning ANYTHING be based on need?


ETA: HAHA, time warp! :D

My view has always been that if you want to own a gun you are probably not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one. You should have to prove that you need a gun.

1) The right to defend oneself and one's family and/or property from would-be perps. If someone breaks into your house, do you really trust the cops to get there in time to protect you?

2) Recreational use -- hunting, target-shooting, etc. Guns can be fun to use.

3) Collecting -- guns could (I suppose) be seen as collectibles and, as such, are investments.
Those reasons I do understand. It was the political role of armed citizens as opposed to unarmed citizens that confused me.

You're right that the Iraq war does demonstrate it's much harder to defeat an armed population then to defeat an armed government.

The reason america has such a fetish about guns is that during the early years of their existance as a state they were somewhat afraid of the British coming back, hence its inclusion in their constitution (also add to the fact that the two main conflicts that had taken place in the americas between anglo saxon colonists (and their backers back in Britain) and so within the state had both been fought under the battle cry of opposing tyrany (the american war of independance and the english civil war (to give them their most uncontrivertial names)) and so the idea of it being each mans duty and right to bear arms both in defence of the state (an ancient greek idea about citizenship carried over) and in defence of personal rights against the state).

Add to this the fact that America as a country is quite backward looking in many respects with the ideal US citizen from histroy being in many eyes the fronteirsman, cowboy, rancher, homesteader, etc, etc. Add to this the fact that hunting in America is increadably more popular then elsewhere (hence a logical need for guns) and home to large dangerous animals to a much greater extent then Europe.

Also add to this the incredible paranoia that seems to infect America/Americans, it must be noted that they as a nation swing between isolationism and paranoid agressive rampage, this tendency seems to happen on an individual basis as well with arms being kept to protect what they see as theirs (with some reason due to the seemingly out of date and inept methods of policing found in most of America) and the hunting down and destruction of what they see as threats (marked traditionally with conflicts with native groups/minority groups, communist witch hunts, range wars, posses to chase down criminals and so on).

Really there is no reason for america to not limit them selves to break down shotguns, target pistols and single shot/limited magasine bolt action rifles. The only thing stopping this is tradition.

This kind of thing makes me glad I live in a country without a written constitution.

Originally Posted by Rambhutan
My view has always been that if you want to own a gun you are probably not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one. You should have to prove that you need a gun.

-----------

Okay, then let's use the same criterion for anything that could possibly kill you.

We can only get these things if we really need them:

- Certain foods (hypertension, heart disease, cancer, etc.)
- Booze/beer (drunken driving, drunken walking, cirrhosis, etc.)
- Cars (accidents)
- Pillows (falling asleep underneath one could be considered potentially deadly)
- Electricity (ZAP)
- Cosmetic surgery (people rarely die from the anesthetic, I suppose)
- Certain painkillers (Your headache isn't THAT bad, Wally. Request denied.)

In fact, let's just take away the right to own anything that one doesn't need.

We shouldn't have a right to own anything unless we actually need it. Let's convert to Communism -- that way nobody will be able to get (afford, or find...) anything they want.

hehe

Originally Posted by Rambhutan
My view has always been that if you want to own a gun you are probably not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one. You should have to prove that you need a gun.

-----------

Okay, then let's use the same criterion for anything that could possibly kill you.

We can only get these things if we really need them:

- Certain foods (hypertension, heart disease, cancer, etc.)
- Booze/beer (drunken driving, drunken walking, cirrhosis, etc.)
- Cars (accidents)
- Pillows (falling asleep underneath one could be considered potentially deadly)
- Electricity (ZAP)
- Cosmetic surgery (people rarely die from the anesthetic, I suppose)
- Certain painkillers (Your headache isn't THAT bad, Wally. Request denied.)

In fact, let's just take away the right to own anything that one doesn't need.

We shouldn't have a right to own anything unless we actually need it. Let's convert to Communism -- that way nobody will be able to get (afford, or find...) anything they want.

hehe

It isn't things that kill me - it is things that other people could use to kill me.

My view has always been that if you want to own a gun you are probably not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one.

Where on earth did you get this idea? The majority of people I know own guns, but not a single one has ever done anything dangerous with them. I myself own a pair of guns and the only thing I've ever done with them is perforate paper targets from a distance. Is there any reason I shouldn't be allowed to have my guns?

Where on earth did you get this idea? The majority of people I know own guns, but not a single one has ever done anything dangerous with them. I myself own a pair of guns and the only thing I've ever done with them is perforate paper targets from a distance. Is there any reason I shouldn't be allowed to have my guns?

As I say it is my personal opinion - I have no expectation of it being particularly shared by people. Until people use their gun to commit a crime, such people are just ordinary people who never do anything dangerous or illegal with it.

As I say it is my personal opinion - I have no expectation of it being particularly shared by people. Until people use their gun to commit a crime, such people are just ordinary people who never do anything dangerous or illegal with it.

I'm just having a great deal of trouble understanding the reasoning behind it.

It's not as though instances of gun-related violence are lightning bolts from a blue sky. Murderers often have had run ins with the law before, not necessarily gun related charges, but run ins the same. If we were more vigilant on preventing those with a history of violence from having guns I think we'd be fine. However, I can't see any reason to prevent a peaceful, law abiding citizen from owning a firearm.

I'm just having a great deal of trouble understanding the reasoning behind it.

It's not as though instances of gun-related violence are lightning bolts from a blue sky. Murderers often have had run ins with the law before, not necessarily gun related charges, but run ins the same. If we were more vigilant on preventing those with a history of violence from having guns I think we'd be fine. However, I can't see any reason to prevent a peaceful, law abiding citizen from owning a firearm.

It is the British way - we have moved away from armed citizenry and in my view the country is a safer and better place for it.

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". ...

Pretext: Independence War and Conquest of the West.
Real reason: NRA lobby and the weapon-related industry/commerce wallets.

Seriously... hand-held weapons to protect oneself from the US government? A government that has one of the largest and most powerful armed forces in the world? What is anyone going to do to an F-22 cRaptor with an M-16? Or try stopping a tank with a pistol.:rolleyes:

A citizen is a person who has an active part in the politics of his country, by voting and partecipating to the res publica.

Examples of citizens who didn't need to carry weapons to be a citizen: Cicero, Plato, Demosthenes, Gandhi, Socrates, Walesa, Mandela...

Tell this when idiots tell you that you aren't a citizen if you aren't armed.

The way I see it, there is what the idea originally meant, and the reality of the situation now.

I believe that the spirit of the laws promting an armed citizenry in the USA was to protect the citizenry against what was felt to be the most important threat at the time: government power. During the 18th century, there were far less checks and balances to government power. Violence was seen as the final resort of the populace when confronted with tyranny.


Of course.
Many countries used to forbid non-nobles to bear weapons. The right to bear arms for anyone was a sign of equality between citizens, also.

Why, when making the "the government might turn on it's people!" argument, do people automatically assume that all soldiers are mindless automatons who blindly follow orders? If the government does attempt to militarily control the country, do you not think that at least some of the soldiers would take offense at having their friends and family being killed, and thus either desert or fight back?

Why, when making the "the government might turn on it's people!" argument, do people automatically assume that all soldiers are mindless automatons who blindly follow orders? If the government does attempt to militarily control the country, do you not think that at least some of the soldiers would take offense at having their friends and family being killed, and thus either desert or fight back?

Or you could say they are on the winning side and might want to save their families by staying there

It is the British way - we have moved away from armed citizenry and in my view the country is a safer and better place for it.

I suppose it does boil down to the differences in our cultures. It's my understanding that the British view guns mainly as a weapon that is used to murder people whereas the first association most Americans make with guns is that of hunting or self defense (in that order, I think).

I suppose it does boil down to the differences in our cultures. It's my understanding that the British view guns mainly as a weapon that is used to murder people whereas the first association most Americans make with guns is that of hunting or self defense (in that order, I think).

We also associate hunting with tossers dressed in red on horseback chasing foxes for no apparent reason, rather than as a way of getting something to eat. My view of need is for example that a farmer should be, and is, allowed to have guns for controlling pests.

How much has the US effort in Iraq been hampered by the armed insurgency?

Pretty much not at all. It's the insurgents with bombs that are doing the hampering. The insurgents with firearms are doing the dying.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?


The American Revolution
The French Revolution
The campaign to liberate South American colonies from Spain

etc

Why, when making the "the government might turn on it's people!" argument, do people automatically assume that all soldiers are mindless automatons who blindly follow orders? If the government does attempt to militarily control the country, do you not think that at least some of the soldiers would take offense at having their friends and family being killed, and thus either desert or fight back?

Because by the time that the government turns on its people, the soldiers that are blindly loyal to it are the only ones left. The others have all been discharged, or disappeared. As a tyrannical government can only stay up with a loyal army, it won't be set up until there is a loyal army. It's simple.

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?

Dictators don't like citizens to have guns. The US was made with everything dictators don't like. So we have guns. So there. If you don't want to own a firearm then by God, don't buy one. But don't go telling me I can't have one.

Dictators don't like citizens to have guns. The US was made with everything dictators don't like. So we have guns. So there. If you don't want to own a firearm then by God, don't buy one. But don't go telling me I can't have one.

Why not? I don't like stealing and I tell people not to do it

I don't plan on stealing, good friend, but if someone breaks into your house and you can't defend yourself don't come crying to me.

I began my life in Nicaragua, where such crime was rampant. If you didn't own a gun and someone broke into your home you were as good as fucked. Same applies here in the US.

I don't want to hurt anyone, these weapons are merely self-defense. Most criminals that do get firearms normally steal them or get them illegally. Making firearms illegal only removes them from the hands of responsible citizens, not from criminals. Otherwise the UK should have 0 crime rates by now.

Dictators don't like citizens to have guns.
Except for all those who do like their citizens to have guns. Like Saddam Hussein.

Except for all those who do like their citizens to have guns. Like Saddam Hussein.

Hussein did, I know, but it was custom to those people to have weaponry. You can't really blame them. If that custom didn't exist he would have banned guns for civilians.

I began my life in Nicaragua, where such crime was rampant. If you didn't own a gun and someone broke into your home you were as good as fucked. Same applies here in the US.



Who are you more likely to shoot at? The person with the gun or the person who has stayed out of your way while you steal some junk?

I don't plan on stealing, good friend, but if someone breaks into your house and you can't defend yourself don't come crying to me.

I began my life in Nicaragua, where such crime was rampant. If you didn't own a gun and someone broke into your home you were as good as fucked. Same applies here in the US.

Not really. While you do have a much higher chance of preventing a theft, you also have a much higher chance of getting killed.

Not really. While you do have a much higher chance of preventing a theft, you also have a much higher chance of getting killed.

That makes no sense, if you realize that. Sure if you go walking around with an AK-47 in your hands someone is going to try and kill you, but having a concealed firearm will not raise your chances of getting killed.

Licenses. Go through gun safety classes, show up at the new equivalent of a DMV and show off your skills, get your license. I'd stagger the renewal dates of course, first termer get a 2 year license. 1st renewal without any incidents, 5 years. 2nd renewal without, 10 years. I'll even say that the license should be free. And toss in a permit system for underage folks who use under the care of a fully licensed adult, other than that, let the states decide the level of skills needed for the range of weapons and permits (Think drivers license).

Every time you buy a gun, got to flash your license. If a gun dealer is caught not checking them, he loses his business. You buy a gun without a license, it's a federal felony, automatic jail time (How much... haven't decided yet). Use a gun that isn't yours in a crime, same. Use a gun purchased without a license, same. And if a licensed person does commit a crime, license revoked and he or she will never get it back.

Look at how well that's worked with booze and cigarrettes... :rolleyes:

Hussein did, I know, but it was custom to those people to have weaponry. You can't really blame them. If that custom didn't exist he would have banned guns for civilians.

That's got to be the worst argument I've ever heard.

That's got to be the worst argument I've ever heard.

Its simply the truth though. They're customs are different from the West. For them its kinda stupid not to own a firearm.

That makes no sense, if you realize that. Sure if you go walking around with an AK-47 in your hands someone is going to try and kill you, but having a concealed firearm will not raise your chances of getting killed.

And I say again - If you broke into someones house and they ran from you and hid somewhere would you shoot them for no benefit to yourself? If they were going to shoot you would you shoot them though? Self defence works both ways

And I say again - If you broke into someones house and they ran from you and hid somewhere would you shoot them for no benefit to yourself?

It depends upon the individual breaking in.

Whilst I would most likely flee upon discovering a house I was B&E not unoccupied, it's a known fact that some criminals don't. In fact, some criminals will hunt and kill the residents of that home, just to remove a witness.

It depends upon the individual breaking in.

Whilst I would most likely flee upon discovering a house I was B&E not unoccupied, it's a known fact that some criminals don't. In fact, some criminals will hunt and kill the residents of that home, just to remove a witness.

But is that the rule or the exception?

And I say again - If you broke into someones house and they ran from you and hid somewhere would you shoot them for no benefit to yourself? If they were going to shoot you would you shoot them though? Self defence works both ways

If someone pulled a gun on me I would shoot them before they shot me yes, who wouldn't. But if someone broke into my home and I had a weapon, to which they flee, I would first check on my family and then call the police.

I would not break into someone's house in the first place...

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?


I'll start by saying I'm a very odd bird. I'm both a very liberal voter and an NRA life member. I own half a dozen guns and i'm an avid hunter.

In the USA we don't have alot of local examples of how guns protect a citizens rights. But I would like to point out that firearms were the first thing confiscated from the defeated south at the end of the civil war.


Let's take a moment and assume that GWB held onto congress, and got them to pass a few odd laws that allowed him to retain power.

What is there to stop him from staying in charge? Most all corrupt governments restrict weapons, because it leaves a certain amount of power in the hands of the people.

If 1 million angry citizens march against a corrupt government you end up with Tienanmen Square. If 1 Million armed citizens march you against a corrupt government you get a revolution. Some would say "What good is a rifle against a tank?", well, just ask hamas, or the tamal tigers. (Not that I support those groups)

George Washington and the revolutionaries didn't stand a chance without weapons. But even outgunned and outnumbered they won the day.


What makes the USA a dangerous country isn't the guns, it's the violent nature of the society itself. If US criminals did not have guns they would use knives, baseball bats or whatever they could get their hands on.

Russia is an excellent example of this, they are not allowed to use guns but their crime rate is still very high with most criminals using knives.

On the flip side we have Switzerland, with a standing militia where every able-bodied man owns an assault rifle and ammunition, yet the crime rate is very low.


A gun is simply a tool. I use my rifles for hunting elk, deer and rabbits for food, as well as target shooting for entertainment. I also admit I keep 2 handguns for my personal protection, or the protection of others and understand the responsibility that comes with that ownership.

This is no different than someone owning kitchen knives. They're perfectly useful for cutting and preparing food, but turned around they could be used to kill.

It's the responsibility of the people in a society to use that tool correctly. And if they cannot do so, that right should be revoked from those citizens that have failed to use it, not the entire citizenry. I also believe (And i'd be thrown out of the NRA for this) that even tho gun ownership is a right in the USA that gun training should be required learning at some point in life. We need a license to drive a car, yet any untrained fool can own a gun.


John Cleese said it well when he joked about what would change when England took back the USA:

"You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun."

But is that the rule or the exception?

Neither...it's too widely dispersed to determine for certain. We can't play rational man with B&E, it doesn't work. Doing so usually really doesn't work.

As someone said earlier - a dictatorship would first seek to turn the military into mindless automatons before seizing power. An armed populace could at the very least make life extremely difficult for the government.

That is the original reason for the Second Amendment. I see no reason why it should be abolished.

Licenses. Go through gun safety classes, show up at the new equivalent of a DMV and show off your skills, get your license. I'd stagger the renewal dates of course, first termer get a 2 year license. 1st renewal without any incidents, 5 years. 2nd renewal without, 10 years. I'll even say that the license should be free. And toss in a permit system for underage folks who use under the care of a fully licensed adult, other than that, let the states decide the level of skills needed for the range of weapons and permits (Think drivers license).

Every time you buy a gun, got to flash your license. If a gun dealer is caught not checking them, he loses his business. You buy a gun without a license, it's a federal felony, automatic jail time (How much... haven't decided yet). Use a gun that isn't yours in a crime, same. Use a gun purchased without a license, same. And if a licensed person does commit a crime, license revoked and he or she will never get it back.

How does that differ significantly from the way things are now?

This licensing proposal seems only to address "gun safety courses," the licensing scheme does not in any meaningful way otherwise differ from the current system, and seems to be significantly more extensive than 'gun safety courses,' which could be say, mandated in high school, warrants.

As it stands now, a dealer MUST check to see if you are eligible to own a firearm, or else he loses his business. Prohibited possession is already a crime, and buying a gun for a prohibited possessor (who is already a criminal, so obviously not deterred by law) is already a serious felony.

If you commit a crime, you are already entered into the NICS database of prohibited persons and it is already a serious crime for a gun store to sell you a gun.

Everything this license scheme proposes is already law, save for mandatory gun safety courses, which could of course be more easily run through the existing school system, much like drivers' ed is in many places.

When the people who do the knock-in-the-night are under the accurate impression that the person inside has a rifle, they will become harder and harder to persuade to knock.

Also, it is almost impossible for a leader, especially an unpopular one, to protect himself from being shot and killed with a rifle at long-range. The widespread presence of accurate and powerful rifles is for this reason a strong disincentive to tyranny and unpopular rule.

How does that differ significantly from the way things are now?

This licensing proposal seems only to address "gun safety courses," the licensing scheme does not in any meaningful way otherwise differ from the current system, and seems to be significantly more extensive than 'gun safety courses,' which could be say, mandated in high school, warrants.

As it stands now, a dealer MUST check to see if you are eligible to own a firearm, or else he loses his business. Prohibited possession is already a crime, and buying a gun for a prohibited possessor (who is already a criminal, so obviously not deterred by law) is already a serious felony.

If you commit a crime, you are already entered into the NICS database of prohibited persons and it is already a serious crime for a gun store to sell you a gun.

Everything this license scheme proposes is already law, save for mandatory gun safety courses, which could of course be more easily run through the existing school system, much like drivers' ed is in many places.


very sound and correct points.i think your idea about incorporating it into the schoolsystem is a great idea that i never considered or heard before.
guns are dangerous just as cars are,and sooner then later most will be exsposed to both.same as sex ed in a way,ignorance of safety could be fatal.

i have had firearms for hunting,sport and self defence since i was 10 years old.my dad signed me up for junior marksman and obviously they had a major emphasis and firearms safety.
if i remember correctly,when i went to get my hunting permit,i think i was around 12 or 14,i had to take a hunters safety course and pass a test at the end.i wont date myself but this was atleast 20 years ago so i dont know if they still do it.
i also think you should have to take a safety coarse if your getting a ccw license.with a strong emphasis on your legal rights and responsibilitys,when you can brandish and what not.

as an aside...i have never ever used a gun in a violent manner,nor have i luckily ever had to shoot anyone in self defense.
i did have to brandish it one time in camden when i was being accosted by 3 gentleman withy knives,they ran off and i kept my valuables and my life possibly.

as to the op....like alot have pointed out,there have been many instances of armed citizens defending themselves from tyranical governments,and even if it wont stand up against a modern military,it sure will slow them down or make them think twice.
who knows..maybe it allready has.
guns aint bad..people are

Licenses. , etc.

I support that in principle but not in effect. As you stated in the perfect world, they'ld only be removed for certain reasons. Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-gun movement, numerous instances have already occured where licenses were used for confiscations or merely stopped being issued. Even after all the promises of "the license is the only thing we'll do".

Would it be unlikely to happen right now? Yes. But imagine the political climate (as far as firearms) returning to the way it was in the 80's and early '90's.

I support that in principle but not in effect. As you stated in the perfect world, they'ld only be removed for certain reasons. Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-gun movement, numerous instances have already occured where licenses were used for confiscations or merely stopped being issued. Even after all the promises of "the license is the only thing we'll do".

Would it be unlikely to happen right now? Yes. But imagine the political climate (as far as firearms) returning to the way it was in the 80's and early '90's.

another good point,it does seem that the anti's do try the incremental approach.
erode it here and there.
i dont trust the gov when they say it is only for this(think patriot act),and if gun registration becomes law,sooner then later it will lead to confiscation,what other point would there be for it?
they allready have laws against felons and mentally ill people from owning them.what purpose would gun registration serve?
only to disarm people that obeyed said law and obviously criminals wont register.i wont ever register any of mine,so i just instantly became a crimminal.great logic.

If someone pulled a gun on me I would shoot them before they shot me yes, who wouldn't.


In this fantasy of yours, is the someone pulling a gun on you retarded, or are you? Common sense would suggest the one pulling the gun first would 'win'... But you tell me.

In this fantasy of yours, is the someone pulling a gun on you retarded, or are you? Common sense would suggest the one pulling the gun first would 'win'... But you tell me.
thats assuming quite a bit there...

Why not? I don't like stealing and I tell people not to do it

The act of stealing does not equal legally owning an inanimate object.

Who are you more likely to shoot at? The person with the gun or the person who has stayed out of your way while you steal some junk?

Just out of curiosity, how is a victim supposed to know what the intentions of an intruder are? True, the intruder might be there to steal some junk, but the intruder might (also/instead) be there to kill, rape, etc the victim.

How does that differ significantly from the way things are now?
Better enforcement of it, no second chances.

This licensing proposal seems only to address "gun safety courses," the licensing scheme does not in any meaningful way otherwise differ from the current system, and seems to be significantly more extensive than 'gun safety courses,' which could be say, mandated in high school, warrants.
Except that mandatory high school classes would remove freedom to choose for those who don't want guns.

As it stands now, a dealer MUST check to see if you are eligible to own a firearm, or else he loses his business.
Sadly, no. There are far too many loopholes for this. Gun shows being the biggest one I can call off the top of my head.

Prohibited possession is already a crime, and buying a gun for a prohibited possessor (who is already a criminal, so obviously not deterred by law) is already a serious felony.
I didn't say this was brand new.

If you commit a crime, you are already entered into the NICS database of prohibited persons and it is already a serious crime for a gun store to sell you a gun.
But the databases aren't linked in many instances. For example, the recent VT shootings. He should have never been allowed to have a gun. Federal law prohibited him from owning a gun, but Virgina law was much more vague and filled with loopholes that he slipped through. My reply is to tighten them up and remove the damn loopholes, loopholes which are in place due to the lobbying efforts of groups like the NRA.

Everything this license scheme proposes is already law, save for mandatory gun safety courses, which could of course be more easily run through the existing school system, much like drivers' ed is in many places.
I propose to make it tighter. I also propose to not let you have a second chance. I'm also preserving the notion that you have a choice to have a gun, and, I'm also forcing gun owners to take responsibility with their weapons as well.

Besides, again, I was asked what I would do if I had the power to do so.

Look at how well that's worked with booze and cigarrettes... :rolleyes:
When was the last time you saw a 7-11 shut down for selling tobacco to minors and said minors put in jail for 5 or so years for buying it?

Better enforcement of it, no second chances.

Better enforcement is on the heads of the prosecutors. Force them to charge criminals, instead of dropping the firearms charges in exchange of a plea bargain.

Except that mandatory high school classes would remove freedom to choose for those who don't want guns.

I'm sure the classes could be set up so that parents/kids could opt out.

Sadly, no. There are far too many loopholes for this. Gun shows being the biggest one I can call off the top of my head.

I've been to gun shows before. All the ones I've been to, require the NICS check to be performed for any pistol/rifle/shotgun purchase.

But the databases aren't linked in many instances. For example, the recent VT shootings. He should have never been allowed to have a gun. Federal law prohibited him from owning a gun, but Virgina law was much more vague and filled with loopholes that he slipped through. My reply is to tighten them up and remove the damn loopholes, loopholes which are in place due to the lobbying efforts of groups like the NRA.

IIRC, didn't the NRA support the NICS check in the first place? And didn't they release a statement after the VT shooting, stating they want to help improve the NICS check, so the circumstances concerning the VT shooting can be avoided in the future?

I propose to make it tighter. I also propose to not let you have a second chance. I'm also preserving the notion that you have a choice to have a gun, and, I'm also forcing gun owners to take responsibility with their weapons as well.

Second chances aren't allowed, by law. Once you commit a felony or are adjudicated mentally incompetent, you're not allowed to own firearms. As far as forcing firearms owners to take responsibility, I know in many states (don't know exactly how many), there are safe storage laws. In CT, firearms are required to be secured in some form or fashion, when not in use.

Blimey. That means that for almost all of its history, my country has been ruled by authoritarian government.

I learn something every day...

You in the UK?

If so, One of your kings took all the guns away from the people to prevent revolt.

Thats the primary reason the US has the second amendment.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?
It worked once before to liberate the the east coast from British colonial rule. Now the armed citizenry outnumbers the professional military over 40 to 1. Even with most of that being shotguns, rifles, pistols, and homemade flamethrowers dispersed amongst an untrained citizen force, that's still a lot of firepower and a lot of people. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US today but only around 2 million in the armed services, not all of which would be willing to slaughter a third of the people in their own country to defend a despotic regieme.

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?
Again, it worked before and that is the source of the belief that it can and will again should the need arise. In reality the struggle would be bitter and the US military would kick ass and give a lot more than it'd get but it's a simple game of numbers and he who has the overwhelming majority usually wins even with inferior training and weapons. Unless it's a swords vs. guns fight, then the guys with the guns will always win.

Finally, the be all end all of this argument:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/07/Gun_control_sieg.jpg

Finally, the be all end all of this argument:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/07/Gun_control_sieg.jpg

Godwin.

Again, it worked before and that is the source of the belief that it can and will again should the need arise. In reality the struggle would be bitter and the US military would kick ass and give a lot more than it'd get but it's a simple game of numbers and he who has the overwhelming majority usually wins even with inferior training and weapons. Unless it's a swords vs. guns fight, then the guys with the guns will always win.
So then you agree that in US vs China, China would win?

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?

This is gonna sound horrible, but even as someone who almost always agrees with Democrats... I still would rather people be able to own guns, even if not part of a well regulated militia!

And it is because of the reason of tyranny. I don't know how much you trust the government right now, but over the past few years I was glad to see the 2nd amendment with the sort of federal administration we (US) had.

I think the best example of 2nd amendment in this sort of action is not to be found in the US, but in the middle east. Sure, the US, a nation of 300 million people, might just barely qualify as "occupying" Iraq, but there, Iraq, is a country where the people could hold guns, and the US can barely control it, for better or for worse.

Of course I don't want the US to devolve into that sort of quagmire were it invaded. Could it? Probably! As a matter of fact you could probably predict right now what sections of America would be fighting whom. But even in that case, with so many Americans armed, it is nearly impossible to think of any other nation being able to come in and really control America.

But even consider the case where another country did this. Probably not a country in existence now, but some unknown super power in the future. When we are taken over by this country, we'll have vast stockpiles of supplies that the occupying government couldn't possible know about because our own government barely keeps track of it. As the American government was going down I'm sure gun safety agencies would destroy records with this in mind.

But there's still the consideration of gun safety now in the present. Is it worth this theoretical safeguard? Well, you may say no, because individuals own impulses are just too disastrous. However, consider, is it plausible that we could have guns and keep them safely? Perhaps with education we could do so. Is this a reasonable expectation of the education system? Consider the examples of literacy, first, as it is clear that early in America's history, few people could read, and now that it is taught to everyone from an early age, nearly everyone can with very few exceptions. Now for a more modern introduction, consider sexual education. It is Experimentally observed that in areas where there is sexual education for teenagers, there is less transmission of STDs and less teenagers giving birth. Should we think that an education of weapon handling, if given properly like these other subjects, would fail to have analogous effects?

So then you agree that in US vs China, China would win?

China always wins. Whatever happens, there it is, being China. Fucked if I can figure out how to stop it being china. Many better military minds than mine have failed in this cause. Rumor has it you invade, take over, and then the bastards make you all chinese.

On the other hand, I do like teh yum cha, so it's not all bad.

Better enforcement is on the heads of the prosecutors. Force them to charge criminals, instead of dropping the firearms charges in exchange of a plea bargain.
That's what this would be doing, in a perfect world.

I'm sure the classes could be set up so that parents/kids could opt out.
Then why have them in high schools? Although I could see arrangements for such under the system I have proposed.

I've been to gun shows before. All the ones I've been to, require the NICS check to be performed for any pistol/rifle/shotgun purchase.

Licensed dealers, yes, unlicensed however... Not to mention the whole issue with the Internet, such as eBay.

Besides, I would say that this would be far quicker. When you get your license, the background check is already complete, owners wouldn't have to wait for any further checks or hold because, again in a perfect world, anything red flags wouldn't be sitting in a number of different databases that would have to be checked against as well as the issue of mistaken IDs. Just swipe and go.

And before you ask, no, I don't think records of how many or what type of guns you own would need to be kept.

IIRC, didn't the NRA support the NICS check in the first place? And didn't they release a statement after the VT shooting, stating they want to help improve the NICS check, so the circumstances concerning the VT shooting can be avoided in the future?
IIRC, after the VT shootings questions were asked about why he hasn't been reported under federal laws and it turned out that Virginia's law didn't require reporting. Why? Because the local NRA chapter and gun owners threw a hissy fit and demanded that only actual commitment into a mental ward should be reported, not out patient like he was.

Second chances aren't allowed, by law. Once you commit a felony or are adjudicated mentally incompetent, you're not allowed to own firearms.
I'm not talking felony, I'm talking being convicted of ANY crime in a court of law (Before you ask, traffic court would be not considered as such, excepting DUIs).

As far as forcing firearms owners to take responsibility, I know in many states (don't know exactly how many), there are safe storage laws. In CT, firearms are required to be secured in some form or fashion, when not in use.
That's nice, but the whole idea I had would be to do away with such laws. If you have been trained and can show it, why would we need such laws because you should know what it is you're doing in terms of storing your weapons. Should this prove to be wrong (You do something stupid in other words like causing a discharge while cleaning because you failed to check), you can have points against the license and will probably not get the longer license the next time it comes up for renewal. Should something happen again, you lose the license and your firearms (And before you ask, accidents can and do happen and before points are awarded against or the license revoked, not only will it be checked for, but the owner has right to challenge the conclusions within court).

China always wins. Whatever happens, there it is, being China. Fucked if I can figure out how to stop it being china. Many better military minds than mine have failed in this cause. Rumor has it you invade, take over, and then the bastards make you all chinese.

On the other hand, I do like teh yum cha, so it's not all bad.
You just figured out their secret weapon. It's the Chinese food, it has conquered millions. ;)

You in the UK?

If so, One of your kings took all the guns away from the people to prevent revolt.

Thats the primary reason the US has the second amendment.

:D:D:D:D:D:

You just have no idea about UK history do you?

All you believe is what you've heard in your junior high gun owners and eagle scout troop isn't it.

Had mr. Weaver not defended himself, he would have very likely shared the fate of his wife and son.

If you'd stop and think for just a moment you might realise that, had he not been armed, there would have been no armed stand-off (duh!), and his family would still be alive.

The whole gun debate always amuses me slightly. Here in Europe it's such a non-issue. We live in safe countries where we have no need to be armed. What are US gun advocates saying about the situation in their own country when they claim they're not safe living there without a gun? They make the US sound like Somalia.

we need guns to protect ourselves from terrorists

You in the UK?

If so, One of your kings took all the guns away from the people to prevent revolt.


Your ignorance is hilarious. :D


we need guns to protect ourselves from terrorists

You're often assaulted by terrorists on home ground, are you? Or were you being sarcastic?

We need guns to protect ourselves from the Absolutists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530128).

You're often assaulted by terrorists on home ground, are you? Or were you being sarcastic?

imagine if just one person on flight 11 had a gun

imagine if just one person on flight 11 had a gun

Two things here. Airport security would have to be effing nuts to allow random people to board a plane with guns. If you think that carrying guns on planes is going to make people safer, and make it harder for terrorists to highjack planes, you need to pause and rethink that a little.

Second, do you know what happens when you fire a gun in a plane?

Legalising guns on planes would be every terrorist's dream. Board the plane, pull your gun out, fire once or twice to shatter a few viewports, and hey presto. Get your friends to repeat ad infinitam on other planes. No need to even plan anything. Terrorism made easy.

Two things here. Airport security would have to be effing nuts to allow random people to board a plane with guns. If you think that carrying guns on planes is going to make people safer, and make it harder for terrorists to highjack planes, you need to pause and rethink that a little.

Second, do you know what happens when you fire a gun in a plane?

Legalising guns on planes would be every terrorist's dream. Board the plane, pull your gun out, fire once or twice to shatter a few viewports, and hey presto. Get your friends to repeat ad infinitam on other planes. No need to even plan anything. Terrorism made easy.

terrorists wouldn't be able to get guns

Instead of free peanuts the airlines could hand out those bullets that squash when they hit the airplane's walls, but still kill a human

terrorists wouldn't be able to get guns

*laughs loudly*

Instead of free peanuts the airlines could hand out those bullets that squash when they hit the airplane's walls, but still kill a human

How 'bout the bullets US police agencies aren't allowed to use (Human Rights Violation) - hollow tipped bullets that impart most, if not all, of their energy on the intended target?

*laughs loudly*

wats funny?

terrorists wouldn't be able to get guns... that's hil-ar-ious!

terrorists wouldn't be able to get guns... that's hil-ar-ious!

they wouldn't be able to get them onto airplanes

How 'bout the bullets US police agencies aren't allowed to use (Human Rights Violation) - hollow tipped bullets that impart most, if not all, of their energy on the intended target?

US police DO use hollow points

It is a humans rights violation for the military to use them.

They have special bullets for shooting on planes, not the same as hollow points.

A 0.5 second google search:

"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body.[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. Despite the ban on military use, hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that does not expand, and some target ranges forbid full metal jacket ammunition. Some indoor shooting ranges also prohibit the use of hollow points, as the rounds can create shrapnel."

they wouldn't be able to get them onto airplanes

Ordinary people have already passed guns through airline inspections. Just do a 'lil research.

US police DO use hollow points

It is a humans rights violation for the military to use them.

They have special bullets for shooting on planes, not the same as hollow points.

A 0.5 second google search:

"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body.[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. Despite the ban on military use, hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that does not expand, and some target ranges forbid full metal jacket ammunition. Some indoor shooting ranges also prohibit the use of hollow points, as the rounds can create shrapnel."

Ah. Well, there you go. I'm glad the Stateside police force is using them.

I believe the only difference for airplane-grade munitions is the alloy used to make the projectile (ie, not lead). I'd check, but I've already expended my want to search wiki/google considering its 2:57am PST.

Ordinary people have already passed guns through airline inspections. Just do a 'lil research.

we don't have to worry about ordinary people

we don't have to worry about ordinary people

Yes, we do. Any one of those people could have been an "extraordinary" person that carried out an extraordinarily hanus act. We're worried about ALL PEOPLE smuggling guns on planes, not just "criminals."

we don't have to worry about ordinary people

Little bit slow there aren't you. If ordinary people can do it why couldn't someone do it with malicious intent

Little bit slow there aren't you. If ordinary people can do it why couldn't someone do it with malicious intent

I think this is either a puppet or a troll...

I think this is either a puppet or a troll...

Yeah i'm guessing the same

Oh well guess i'll just start taking bets at what post count he gets banned

Any takers?

Yeah i'm guessing the same

Oh well guess i'll just start taking bets at what post count he gets banned

Any takers?

Isn't there something about gambling in thread posted in the Forum Rules?

:p

Isn't there something about gambling in thread posted in the Forum Rules?

:p

Damn it. What if I set up an indian reservation in NS General?

Damn it. What if I set up an indian reservation in NS General?

I never said that there was a rule... Just "I think" :)

What are US gun advocates saying about the situation in their own country when they claim they're not safe living there without a gun? They make the US sound like Somalia.

Of course, not all of us are using that argument. Many of us support gun ownership for cultural and traditional reasons, and that we don't believe there's a reason the average citizen shouldn't have a gun, certain exceptions notwithstanding. A lot of the things espoused by the CNPT would be very largely accepted by Americans. In fact, there are some states where such a party would do extremely well.

These gun control threads suck.

Then again, if I could get, keep and use an assault rifle for rabbit hunting legally, I'd probably just go out and shoot everyone in sight before shooting myself, too. :rolleyes:

Why on earth would you need an assault rifle for hunting rabbits?

Why on earth would you need an assault rifle for hunting rabbits?

Why do you have to need something in order to be allowed to have it?

You in the UK?

If so, One of your kings took all the guns away from the people to prevent revolt.

Thats the primary reason the US has the second amendment.
*Laughs loudly* Go on. Which King. Impress me with your knowlege of British history. And, if you don't fancy continuing to dogde my point, tell me how not having guns makes my country a totalitarian dictatorship.

I have two honest questions here:
And I have one honest answer, and one honest question in response.
1) Why must it be that owning guns must just be for anti-government purposes in your mind?
It's just as lame a reason to stupidly support rampant Death-culture as any other.
2) What do you propose as the alternative?
How about not owning a gun?

Why do you have to need something in order to be allowed to have it?

Probably because it would be rather odd to use an assault rifle to hunt a rabbit (unless you want to use overkill)...

Nouvelle Wallonochia makes a good point. Government officials have not the right to tell us we can not have something just because they do not feel we need it. The people rule the government, not the opposite way about.

I have always favored Citizen gun ownership, for many reasons. I could sit here and ask questions like "How many Jews could Hitler's thugs have hauled in to the death camps if just a portion of said Jews had been armed." That is interesting to think about, but it wouldn't get the job done.

In all truth, American citizens have been called on in the past to use guns against government officials, without being separatists, terrorists or militant lunatic fanatics.

In 1946, in the town of Athens, Tennessee, returning military veterans were informed the local sheriff was attempting to steal the election. They called a militia, surrounded the courthouse, some fire was exchanged and the sheriff's men surrendered. The veterans made sure the elections were carried out and immediately afterward they stood down and went home.

By the by, as long as I'm here, I have some links you all might find interesting.

http://www.textfiles.com/survival/q&a_mil.txt
http://www.a-human-right.com/

~ Romandeos.

But if he hadn't had the gun his family would still be alive.

such a simple, simple way to think.... Taking away the guns is NOT the solution. It is his God given RIGHT to own the gun, and a government "regulation" that made the barrel length illegal. Surely you can put more thought into an answer than that..

such a simple, simple way to think.... Taking away the guns is NOT the solution. It is his God given RIGHT to own the gun, and a government "regulation" that made the barrel length illegal. Surely you can put more thought into an answer than that..

Always loved the idea that God would be a gun nut

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Fuck that noise. Been a while since I saw so biased a questionnaire.

Probably because it would be rather odd to use an assault rifle to hunt a rabbit (unless you want to use overkill)...

That doesn't answer my question. Why must I justify my owning of something? I always thought that in a permissive society (yes, I'm aware that the US isn't exactly a model example of such) the state had to justify why someone shouldn't have something rather than the other way around.

Current situation. (Legal guns in places, illegal guns spread around almost anywhere you'd want one)

The police perhaps?

Always loved the idea that God would be a gun nut

Fuck that noise. Been a while since I saw so biased a questionnaire.

And those are the reasons I hate gun control threads. Most supporters of firearm ownership spout insipid arguments about "God wanting it" and other such silliness, and they taint anyone else who supports gun ownership by association.

I just want to point out an error in your post. The minimum legal barrel length for a shotgun is 18" (without getting an NFA tax stamp). A rifle's minimum legal barrel length is 16" (again, without an NFA stamp).

You`re right, I was asleep at the switch. shotgun length 18" rifle length 16" most made 16 1/4" to stay in compliance. regardless Weaver was framed. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

SNIP...
Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?
SNIP

Yes. I do think the year of the historical event was 1776.

Don't try to say that owning a registered firearm is bad or we are going to have a problem

How so?

Don't say that owing an unregistered firearm is bad either.

How can it be good?

I don't understand phrases like "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." and "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.". The only ones in the US I can picture using guns against the US government are criminals who shoot cops to resist arrest and terrorists such as separatists, religious fanatics or militant activists.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government? What real life cases has there been where a citizen was in the right to use a gun for self defense against the government?


Don't try to say that owning a registered firearm is bad or we are going to have a problem

Always loved the idea that God would be a gun nut

:) I liked that post...

In all actuality I considered my words carefully, but then went with what is common... The United States was created on a Judeo-Christian value system, and thus the name God (referring to any God you may have) appears in pretty much all historical documents. If I were to have said "rights" instead of "God-given rights" wouldnt have had the same feeling....

u did make me laugh though...

Don't try to say that owning a registered firearm is bad or we are going to have a problem

Don't say that owing an unregistered firearm is bad either.

From what I can tell you, many people who use guns are against the government in some way. For example, neo-nazis, ultra-nationalists, separatists, and religious nuts. They believe that there should be some sort of change regarding the government and thus believe that often violence is the way to do it, since many people disagree with their belief's and won't vote them into office. XD However, they do not represent the vast majority of responsible gun owners out there. They are a loud, violent, minority. There is no reason to regulate gun laws further, since there are nuts anywhere you go, and it is no different for people who love guns.

:) I liked that post...

In all actuality I considered my words carefully, but then went with what is common... The United States was created on a Judeo-Christian value system, and thus the name God (referring to any God you may have) appears in pretty much all historical documents. If I were to have said "rights" instead of "God-given rights" wouldnt have had the same feeling....

u did make me laugh though...

I always considered it more of a government given priviledge rather than a god given right to be honest

You must remember that the initial colonists came over to America because their religious beliefs were being persecuted. Thus the idea of freedom of religion, and religion in general, played heavily for the founding fathers. Some of them believed that certain rights were given to you via the creator and could not be taken by man [ Surprisingly quite a few founding fathers were Agnostics or Atheists, or were not very religious]. You could just as easily interpret it as government-given, if you happen to be an Agnostic or Atheist. Its esstiently the same idea.

Better enforcement of it, no second chances.


Except that mandatory high school classes would remove freedom to choose for those who don't want guns.


Sadly, no. There are far too many loopholes for this. Gun shows being the biggest one I can call off the top of my head.


I didn't say this was brand new.


But the databases aren't linked in many instances. For example, the recent VT shootings. He should have never been allowed to have a gun. Federal law prohibited him from owning a gun, but Virgina law was much more vague and filled with loopholes that he slipped through. My reply is to tighten them up and remove the damn loopholes, loopholes which are in place due to the lobbying efforts of groups like the NRA.


I propose to make it tighter. I also propose to not let you have a second chance. I'm also preserving the notion that you have a choice to have a gun, and, I'm also forcing gun owners to take responsibility with their weapons as well.

Besides, again, I was asked what I would do if I had the power to do so.

1) What is the "second chance" you're talking about now? A person has to jump through quite a few hoops to get a felony pardoned and expunged and be able to own a gun again. Also, If the question is merely enforcement, why is such a vast, expensive and clumsy new system necessary? Why not simply put more effort into enforcing the laws which exist, the effects of which are the same as the ones you propose.

2) This isn't reasonable. Mandatory gun safety courses do not require that someone owns a gun. Also, in many instances, such as sex ed, and sometimes drivers ed, "choice" is trumped by other factors, like the benefits of safe drivers or safe sex.

3) Closing that loophole requires a very simple law.

4) The NRA just this week endorsed a bill passed in the House which closes the loophole that allowed Seung Cho to buy a gun legally. Also, state laws are not what prevent criminals or the insane from buying guns in the first place, it is all governed by federal law. 18 USC 922 IMMSMC.

NRA's gun loophole law > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2923101.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2923101

1) What is the "second chance" you're talking about now? A person has to jump through quite a few hoops to get a felony pardoned and expunged and be able to own a gun again. Also, If the question is merely enforcement, why is such a vast, expensive and clumsy new system necessary? Why not simply put more effort into enforcing the laws which exist, the effects of which are the same as the ones you propose.

4) The NRA just this week endorsed a bill passed in the House which closes the loophole that allowed Seung Cho to buy a gun legally. Also, state laws are not what prevent criminals or the insane from buying guns in the first place, it is all governed by federal law. 18 USC 922 IMMSMC.

NRA's gun loophole law > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2923101.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2923101

Too little too late.

I still don't understand the point of buying a firearm at a gun store when you can go to a gun show where there are no backround checks and no questions asked. That's how it works where I live anyway.

Didn't say it was necessarily good, but it is definitely not bad. Why the hell should the government know who does and does not have a gun?

So that not just everyone can get one? or at least to try and restrict bad people getting weapons

How can it be good?

Didn't say it was necessarily good, but it is definitely not bad. Why the hell should the government know who does and does not have a gun?

Didn't say it was necessarily good, but it is definitely not bad. Why the hell should the government know who does and does not have a gun?

I'm not sure I'm reading this post correctly.

Are you arguing that it's definatly not bad that convicted criminals and people with mental disorders have access to firearms?

Too little too late.

I still don't understand the point of buying a firearm at a gun store when you can go to a gun show where there are no backround checks and no questions asked. That's how it works where I live anyway.

Seung Cho passed the background check, and did not use any kind of no-check loophole.

The breakdown in communication which allowed Seung Cho to buy his guns is half way to being closed, with the House bill which passed this week.

Again, a simple law would close the 'gun show loophole' in those states where it exists.

Seung Cho passed the background check, and did not use any kind of no-check loophole.

The breakdown in communication which allowed Seung Cho to buy his guns is half way to being closed, with the House bill which passed this week.

Again, a simple law would close the 'gun show loophole' in those states where it exists.

As I said, too little too late.

"Subjects praise public tranquility, Citizens individual freedom; one prefers security of possessions, and the other that of persons; one wants the best Government to be the most severe, the other maintains that it is the mildest; this one wants crimes to be punished, and that one wants them prevented; one thinks it is a fine thing to be feared by neighbors, the other prefers to be ignored by them; one is satisfied when money circulates, the other demands that the people have bread."

--Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

I'm not sure I'm reading this post correctly.

Are you arguing that it's definatly not bad that convicted criminals and people with mental disorders have access to firearms?

You are not reading it correctly. I said we should not have to register our guns. A background check to legally purchase a gun may not be such a bad idea but it certainly will not keep guns from criminals or those with mental disorders.

You are not reading it correctly. I said we should not have to register our guns. A background check to legally purchase a gun may not be such a bad idea but it certainly will not keep guns from criminals or those with mental disorders.

Why won't it? A properly enforced system of background checks should go a long way towards ensuring that only those who should have firearms do. Registration of guns is an important part of this as it helps the authorities keep track of where all the legally owned firearms are.

Why won't it? A properly enforced system of background checks should go a long way towards ensuring that only those who should have firearms do. Registration of guns is an important part of this as it helps the authorities keep track of where all the legally owned firearms are.

It won't keep criminals and mentally ill people from acquiring guns because the can, do, and will buy them illegally. :rolleyes:

It won't keep criminals and mentally ill people from acquiring guns because the can, do, and will buy them illegally. :rolleyes:

So we should make it easier for them?

What are you not paying attention to? I didn't say no background check. I said no registration of the gun. Obviously you do not understand the difference between a background check to purchase a gun and registration of a gun. :(

Ok misreading on my part but isn't the point of the registration to make it tracable if a gun is used in a crime among other things?

So we should make it easier for them?

What are you not paying attention to? I didn't say no background check. I said no registration of the gun. Obviously you do not understand the difference between a background check to purchase a gun and registration of a gun. :(

It won't keep criminals and mentally ill people from acquiring guns because the can, do, and will buy them illegally. :rolleyes:

Which is why registration is important. If we know where all the legally owned firearms are then it becomes easier for the govt. to keep track of them. It's not a perfect system but at least it is an attempt to control who has access to weapons.

Edit: Incidentally, what's your problem with registering firearms?

Ok misreading on my part but isn't the point of the registration to make it tracable if a gun is used in a crime among other things?

I'm sure it could be used for many purposes. I guess that all depends on the motive of the person doing the tracing. :eek:

I'm sure it could be used for many purposes. I guess that all depends on the motive of the person doing the tracing. :eek:

But then again either scenario is a bad one. It just depends on which one you see as being more likely. Government oppression requiring an armed revolution, or armed criminals becoming more prolific

Why won't it? A properly enforced system of background checks should go a long way towards ensuring that only those who should have firearms do. Registration of guns is an important part of this as it helps the authorities keep track of where all the legally owned firearms are.

Do you know how easy it is for someone (even criminals) to MAKE a firearm? It's not rocket science, and many firearms can even be made with basic materials and hand tools.

As far as registration, what will that accomplish other than giving the government a nice long list of who owns what firearms? It won't stop crime, as the criminals just won't register theirs. Why do the authorities need to know where all the legally owned firearms are, anyway?

You want to reduce firearms crime? Try enforcement of the laws we already have, and you should see the crime figures drop.

Which is why registration is important. If we know where all the legally owned firearms are then it becomes easier for the govt. to keep track of them. It's not a perfect system but at least it is an attempt to control who has access to weapons.

Edit: Incidentally, what's your problem with registering firearms?

BINGO! "If we know where all the legally owned firearms are then it becomes easier for the govt. to keep track of them." So, why would the government want to "keep track of them?"

BINGO! "If we know where all the legally owned firearms are then it becomes easier for the govt. to keep track of them." So, why would the government want to "keep track of them?"

It makes solving crimes easier for a start.

What is it with people thinking that the government knowing who owns guns is automatically a bad thing?

Do you know how easy it is for someone (even criminals) to MAKE a firearm? It's not rocket science, and many firearms can even be made with basic materials and hand tools.

As far as registration, what will that accomplish other than giving the government a nice long list of who owns what firearms? It won't stop crime, as the criminals just won't register theirs. Why do the authorities need to know where all the legally owned firearms are, anyway?

You want to reduce firearms crime? Try enforcement of the laws we already have, and you should see the crime figures drop.

I never said it would stop crime but it is a tool in the arsenal that can be used to help fight it.

Do guns actually work as a safeguard against tyranny in the US? What historical events has there been where citizens have defeated corruption or oppression in any part of the government on any level by using guns?Well, the Black Panthers and related groups actually led a very successful campaign against very real police oppression, largely by arming themselves rather heavily and following police patrols around to oversee their interactions with minority residents. (The Panthers, by the way, also ran other programs such as providing free breakfasts for poor ghetto children.) Again, it was rather successful, though the Panthers eventually fell apart due to internal strife resulting from the fact that some of their leaders were clearly insane. Of course, it also didn't help that the government was (for all the obvious reasons) out to get them, a situation the played all-too-well on their innate paranoia.

Meanwhile, it is rather widely agreed that the government's fear of an all-out conflict with armed black revolutionary groups played an important role in the development of the government's more conciliatory and compromising attitude toward more mainstream reformers such as Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thus, I would say that on the whole black revolutionaries played an important part in the Civil Rights struggle; and at a minimum they proved that it is not at all irrational to believe that a little show of force may make the government think twice about its own repressive policies.

It will always be easier to oppress a non-resisting group than it is to oppress a group that actively resists. If every Jew destined for the gas chambers had resisted arrest, if even a moderate number had picked up a gun and taken out a few soldiers before being herded onto the trains, do you really think the Nazis could have spared the manpower to subdue them while also fighting a massively expensive two-front war? I don't know if they would have given up the idea entirely or not, but I'm confident that far fewer people would have been executed.

Are guns useful for guarding normal citizens' rights against the US government?So long as the government behaves within a certain spectrum of reason, no. The courts protect us well enough. But do we really want to give up our guns today only to find that the courts have become impotent tomorrow?

It makes solving crimes easier for a start.

What is it with people thinking that the government knowing who owns guns is automatically a bad thing?

Pre-WW II Germany perhaps. :eek:

Pre-WW II Germany perhaps. :eek:

You are aware that the gun control laws in place in 1933 when Hitler took power were ones put in place in 1919 and then added in 1920 and 1928 mainly so Germany could meet the terms of the Versailles treaty with regards to numbers of military grade weapons in the country?

Which is why registration is important. If we know where all the legally owned firearms are then it becomes easier for the govt. to keep track of them. It's not a perfect system but at least it is an attempt to control who has access to weapons.

Edit: Incidentally, what's your problem with registering firearms?

Why would criminals register their firearms? :confused:

Why would criminals register their firearms? :confused:

They wouldn't.

They wouldn't.

Then how exactly would registration prevent gun crime?

Then how exactly would registration prevent gun crime?

I wouldn't have said it prevents so much as protects against the use of legally owned guns for crimes (although you can always not drop your gun at the crime seen) To be honest though i'm just attempting to play devils advocate but am much too sleepy to do it accurately

Things have changed in the USA since then in two important ways: government military power is far more effective, and there are more mechanisms for rendering the government accountable to the people.The notion that government military power is far more effective is something of a myth when applied to domestic military action. When the military is called up against a nation's own people, it actually becomes severely limited. Why?

First, most of the "big guns" are effectively off the table. If there were an insurrection in New York City, what is the government going to do? Nuke the city? I'm sure that will do wonders for the "hearts and minds" side of things--suddenly they'll have an even bigger insurrection on their hands as millions of previously neutral or noncommittal Americans side against the government. But nuclear weapons are just worst-case: the same applies to most of our heavy artillery and air-to-ground weaponry--too much collateral damage against innocent civilians.

Thus, you're stuck fighting urban-guerrilla style, which any soldier will tell you is the absolute worst: you can't tell friend from foe, and your opponents will actively use this to their advantage, disguising themselves as civilians to evade you and then turning around to throw a grenade. The only "solution" is the kind of oppressive "security checkpoints" and other draconian measures which, once again, do very little to make you look like the good guys--especially when the complaint of the insurgents was, in the first place, that you represent an oppressive and controlling government. To defeat them, you can only prove them right.

Finally, you have to deal with serious morale and loyalty issues among your own soldiers. In fact, it is not uncommon even for very high-ranking military officers to suggest that if there were an insurrection on U.S. soil, they would prefer to sit it out, even to order anyone under their command to sit it out. One suspects that others (though they could never say so openly) might actually side with the insurgents.

Of course, the people and the military might be on your side as long as the insurgents are obviously just some nut-job separatists with no legitimate claim to a grievance against the government. But that's precisely the point: so long as sufficient numbers of people are armed and prepared to resist government oppression by force, the government is compelled to avoid giving them any good reason to do so. Because if they have any good pretext whatsoever, no government in the world can rely on its military might to assure victory over its own citizens.

While not a direct parallel, our experience in Iraq is evidence enough of this: it's relatively easy to conquer a country when your military completely outclasses theirs; but when you want to quell the violence AND get them to like you, suddenly your military is impotent. We can't go back to shelling cities in another "shock & awe" campaign, because if we do we're only going to turn more people against us.

That's what this would be doing, in a perfect world.

Since I'm sure you know that the world isn't perfect, you should also know your plan probably won't work like you hope.


Then why have them in high schools? Although I could see arrangements for such under the system I have proposed.

Having them in high schools would be efficient because at some point, almost everyone goes through high school (there would have to be some accomodations for those kids that are home schooled, though).

Licensed dealers, yes, unlicensed however... Not to mention the whole issue with the Internet, such as eBay.


A person cannot buy a firearm through eBay, and buying one over the internet requires the firearm to be sent to an FFL holder, who is required to perform the NICS check.

Besides, I would say that this would be far quicker. When you get your license, the background check is already complete, owners wouldn't have to wait for any further checks or hold because, again in a perfect world, anything red flags wouldn't be sitting in a number of different databases that would have to be checked against as well as the issue of mistaken IDs. Just swipe and go.

The NICS check takes 60 seconds, if that. When I was purchasing my AR-15, it was performed while I was filling out the paperwork (so, it didn't add any time to the process). Also, as I stated before, the world isn't perfect, which is why the NICS check should be performed every time a firearm is purchased.

And before you ask, no, I don't think records of how many or what type of guns you own would need to be kept.

That's good. Something we agree on. :D

IIRC, after the VT shootings questions were asked about why he hasn't been reported under federal laws and it turned out that Virginia's law didn't require reporting. Why? Because the local NRA chapter and gun owners threw a hissy fit and demanded that only actual commitment into a mental ward should be reported, not out patient like he was.

I had heard the shooter was supposed to be commited, and the ruling was changed by another judge to out-patient. I am glad though, that the NRA is working with legislators to correct that loophole.

I'm not talking felony, I'm talking being convicted of ANY crime in a court of law (Before you ask, traffic court would be not considered as such, excepting DUIs).

So, if someone gets convicted (even once) of a misdemeanor (public intoxication, trespass, disorderly conduct, etc), they should be disallowed from owning a firearm? Sorry, that's an excessive punishment for a mistake. Maybe if they're a frequent offender of misdemeanor charges, your suggestion might make more sense.

That's nice, but the whole idea I had would be to do away with such laws. If you have been trained and can show it, why would we need such laws because you should know what it is you're doing in terms of storing your weapons. Should this prove to be wrong (You do something stupid in other words like causing a discharge while cleaning because you failed to check), you can have points against the license and will probably not get the longer license the next time it comes up for renewal. Should something happen again, you lose the license and your firearms (And before you ask, accidents can and do happen and before points are awarded against or the license revoked, not only will it be checked for, but the owner has right to challenge the conclusions within court).

Knowing what to do and doing it are 2 different things. It's common sense to keep your firearms stored safely (unloaded, locked up, and away from kids), but there are some that don't follow that. A training class won't help those people. That's why the safe storage laws are there.

Having them in high schools would be efficient because at some point, almost everyone goes through high school (there would have to be some accomodations for those kids that are home schooled, though).

My niece was taught to fire a gun in elementary school last year. Her class went to an old boy scout camp where they learned basic cold weather survival and firearms familiarization.

The founding fathers must have had some reason for putting the second amendment into the constitution.
If you cannot understand the reason for
it, then you are blind. Banning guns would be an idiot move. Most law
abiding citizens don't go out and mow people down with their weapons.
Having a gun for self defense is a right that never should be repealed.

Some idiots have made the contention that "protection is what the police
are for." Goody for that. Now, what if someone is in your home, and you
don't have a chance to call the police, or they're too far away to reach
you in time? It's far better to have a gun and not need it than to need
it and not have it.

And yes, the second amendment is also in place as one of our government's
many checks and balances. There are over 150 million registered gun owners.
If the government ever did become outright tyrannical, and only one percent
of those same gun owners stood up, that would be a standing army of
1.5 million angry citizens. Pretty good dictatorship deterrent if you ask me.
Now, if three percent stood up, (and it was three percent of the population
that won the Revolutionary War), you're talking about 4.5 million civilian
soldiers.

Our founding fathers understood that all governments, regardless of the
flavor, have a pretty good likelihood of becoming corrupt and dictatorial
over time. That's why they instituted the separation of powers and
gave the people the right to defend themselves against all enemies
foreign and DOMESTIC. It's awfully hard to subdue a nation of people
who can shoot back. God forbid that should ever happen. Nobody wants
that. But should it ever come to that, well, that's what the second
amendment is for. I don't own any guns, myself. But, I'll be damned
if I would ever support removing the rights of others to do so.

If you want to see what gun confiscation and
prohibition can accomplish, look no further than post Katrina New Orleans.
Police went door to door taking away the legally bought and owned firearms
from law abiding citizens, and left them defenseless. We all saw how that
turned out. Get your heads together, people.