[bomb dropper]

Well the last few days I've been trying to get all the paperwork around for my ccp. And it's got me thinking alot about this.

I've read and read the second amendment and no where does it say "a barrel less then 16" is in a different category" or "no colonialist should have a firearm that fires more then one round with each pull of the trigger" now I know that it was written a long time ago before autos where even thought of. But why is it that there are so many restrictions put on a very short to the point amendment. It's for a militia so therefor I want a semi auto rifle or pistol or short shotgun. But if certain people where to have it their way we wouldn't have any of those.

But when someone dresses up like a Marine and gets benefits and free gifts from it, even though he never served gets off with nothing more then a slap on the hand. Because he has the right of "freedom of speech"

I guess that I'm just getting fed up with all the bs that I have to go through to get a CCP or to own a suppresor. it's not much of a rant but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm getting at.

[Sediment]

If you noticed the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about Muskets or Assault Rifles either.

[Sediment]

But when someone dresses up like a Marine and gets benefits and free gifts from it, even though he never served gets off with nothing more then a slap on the hand. Because he has the right of "freedom of speech"

Wondering what you are talking about with this part though...

[hardworker]

Most of the laws on the books for most states are just regulations on weapons, not restrictions. The problem is arms have come a long way since the founding fathers. The extra hassle of getting a fully automatic gun doesn't bother me as much as the fact that they capped production of them for civilians in 1986, driving prices to astronomical levels. A line does need to be drawn somewhere. Where is what people have problems with.

[DoubleTapDrew]

The 2a doesn't need to specify anything. It doesn't grant rights, it's just a restriction on the federal government. The 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are blatantly unconstitutional, but since the group it affects is so small getting them overturned will be like ice skating uphill.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

NFA 1935 -- From another Fascist President, FDR

[bomb dropper]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24286790/detail.html about the fake Marine.

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device. But why can't someone who is 20 years old buy a pistol over the counter.

[CoRoMo]

If you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it will explain the need 'to prevent abuse of the government's powers'. This is a paramount reason to enumerate the rights of the people. Of course, in order for the people to fulfill this role at all, there must exist an adequation of arms in the people's right, as the government holds. Therefore, whatever arms the government bears, so shall the people. Otherwise, the people couldn't possibly prevent jack squat.

This has been infringed upon beyond all understanding.

[yeti]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon.

Why?

[bomb dropper]

Thank you CoRoMo that is my new argument to the leftist I work with

[Sam1911]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device.

Again, why?

[bomb dropper]

Why?

Bad wording it was supposed to be sarcastic.

[hardworker]

The American people are the best armed people in the developed world. Even if the government has machine guns, we still are able to own just about any other kind of gun. That's nothing to sneeze at. The world it not the same as it was back in the revolution. Back then, everyone was poor, including the government. The governments were much smaller everywhere and only lightly armed. Nowadays, the government is huge and has the people completely out gunned.

It's not all downhill for us gun owners though, look at how the AWB was let to die, and how the courts struck down the handgun bans in some of our bigger cities.

I won't pretend to know what will happen if they ever try to confiscate all guns, but I'd bet that it won't be pretty, even if they have us completely out gunned.

[DoubleTapDrew]

even if they have us completely out gunned.
It's the other way around. The gov't is completely outgunned. It doesn't matter what type of new whiz-bang machine gun you have, when you are outnumbered 5,000+:1 you are in serious trouble, and it will soon be someone elses new whiz-bang machine gun. And I don't think any politician would even think about using something other than conventional weapons. If they wouldn't use N/B/C weapons in the middle east they aren't going to do it on our own soil. Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.

[Patriotme]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

[VinnAY]

I've read and read the second amendment and no where does it say "a barrel less then 16" is in a different category" or "no colonialist should have a firearm that fires more then one round with each pull of the trigger" now I know that it was written a long time ago before autos where even thought of. But why is it that there are so many restrictions put on a very short to the point amendment. It's for a militia so therefor I want a semi auto rifle or pistol or short shotgun. But if certain people where to have it their way we wouldn't have any of those.


2A also makes no mention of firearms. It reads "arms". Is that a sword? Knife? Ice pick? Single shot musket? Assuming by omission that you can have things because it doesn't say you can't, is flawed. It's meaning has to be interpreted and justly applied. Two lines can't possibly address all situation or manner of questions that come up two hundred thirty something years later.

[CoRoMo]

Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.
Elections will be a thing of the distant past, when such measures begin.

[Carter]

Personally, I think gun control laws (especially bans) are horrible economically. Think about how much money gets spent on guns every year. Now think about how much more would be spent if certain laws were abolished, and how much would not be spent if more laws were in place.

Gun control hurts the economy IMHO.

But thats just a side note to the fact that it violates the constitution...

[nelsonal]

I had an interesting thing pointed out to me a while ago, when the second amendment was written it was not uncommon for a group of investors to buy and outfit the most modern warships. Can you imagine a group of private investors buying a missle cruiser for patrolling the Somali coast today?

[Iam2taz]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.
Yeah... It is just about on life support! :cuss:

[mcdonl]

Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.

Nobel winner none-the-less....

[FROGO207]

Less is more.:what: I think that the gun owners do qualify as a minority and as such are entitled to all the benefits that all other minorities are allowed in the USA.:D I am thinking of subsidized firearms purchases and allowances for newer full auto for starters.:cool: We need to work harder to overturn the firearms legislation that restricts us so IMHO.

[Old krow]

I know that there has to be laws to regulate the power of a full automatic weapon. Or a destructive device.

I'm assuming that you meant the sale or ownership? They really don't regulate the power of them.

Again, why?

I'll play the devil advocate here. I'm not advocating this either way, just stating a case;

IF a convicted felon, of a violent crime (not felony jay walking) who has been to trial, been convicted of rape, murder, <insert violent crime here> gets out on good behavior, he should be able to own a fully automatic weapon?

Prohibiting that would in and of itself be a restriction imposed upon the Second Amendment.

If we made the case that we should be able to "bear" any arms that the government bears, should we all be allowed Stinger missiles? NBC?

Now on the NOT Devil's side,

We need to work harder to overturn the firearms legislation that restricts us so IMHO.

The reason that it hasn't been overturned was previously stated; they're a small minority. If we want to keep guns as a part of our heritage, we should make it to where we're not the minority anymore.

[Neverwinter]

But don't we have a "Living, breathing Constitution?"
Obama was a law scholar. He must be right.
Courtesy of the Texas Board of Education:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.

[Charleo0192]

The 2a doesn't need to specify anything. It doesn't grant rights, it's just a restriction on the federal government. The 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are blatantly unconstitutional, but since the group it affects is so small getting them overturned will be like ice skating uphill.
Its part of the bill of rights which was made to protect the rights of citizens. It is saying we are allowed to bear arms, period. It is protecting the right, but is also the thing giving us the right.

[jakk280rem]

...but is also the thing giving us the right.

no, it's not. the right to select for oneself a self representitive government, to bear arms in defence of or in opposition of it, to assemble and speak out in support or protest of that government is a Human Right. It is a birth right. each and every human was imbued those rights at birth by their creator.

[hardworker]

Yes, it says arms. The definition of "arms" is very vague. Do F16's count as arms? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and they chose full auto's.

[happygeek]

I'll play the devil advocate here. I'm not advocating this either way, just stating a case;

IF a convicted felon, of a violent crime (not felony jay walking) who has been to trial, been convicted of rape, murder, <insert violent crime here> gets out on good behavior, he should be able to own a fully automatic weapon?

Prohibiting that would in and of itself be a restriction imposed upon the Second Amendment.


People who have been duly convicted of a crime lose all sorts of rights, not least of which is freedom of movement. If they've been let out of prison on parole, they're still under a whole host of restrictions including restrictions on travel. Whether it's wise to allow so many out on parole considering the rate at which parolees tend to commit crimes and get re-arrested is up for debate.

Talking about taking someone's rights away who has been duly convicted of a crime is in a whole different league than where the anti-gunners are, since they want to take everyone's rights away.


If we made the case that we should be able to "bear" any arms that the government bears, should we all be allowed Stinger missiles? NBC?


According to Wikipedia a Stinger missile costs $38,000 while a Javelin anti-tank missile costs $40,000 for each missile plus $125,000 for the reusable launch unit. Prices like that tend to result in automatic restriction to the wealthy. If I'm not badly mistaken, both would be considered destructive devices under the NFA, not automatics, and hence you could still buy a brand new one, assuming you have $38,000 plus the $200 tax stamp laying around.

As far as NBC, people have made poison gas, the Tokyo Subway Attack comes to mind. If you're talking about things like nuclear or hydrogen bombs, we're right back in the realm of Bill Gates/Donald Trump like wealth to own one, again restricting such devices to the very wealthy.

[happygeek]

On a sidenote, would a Mk19 be considered a destructive device or an automatic under the NFA? If it's a destructive device, you could buy one for around $15,500 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk19.htm).

[dmancornell]

What irks me even more than the asinine controls on select fire, SBR's, etc. are the fact that police are allowed to have them without paying insane scalper prices. Yet another example of a statist entity giving professional courtesy to another statist entity.

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the cops blow through taxpayer supplied ammo in full auto in my private club and yukking it up because mere mundanes like myself can't have them.

Apparently the Commerce Clause means only the state and rich people can have select fire guns. :cuss:

[Erik M]

Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.Karl Marx said something to the tune of it's not who casts the votes, it's who counts them. As CoRoMo said, 2A issues will be the least of the masses worries by that time.

[Old krow]

Talking about taking someone's rights away who has been duly convicted of a crime is in a whole different league than where the anti-gunners are, since they want to take everyone's rights away.

I agree, 100%. I'm only playing DA in the realm of this question though and I'm using "small strokes" so-to-speak. While I heartily agree with you, it doesn't answer the questions. The question was specific to felons, and of the violent crime variety, and to answer the "why?" question as to any restriction to full autos.

In fact, I agree with most of what you wrote. The question is only really meant to ask if the "any gun, for any person, at any time" policy is always the right thing to do. Depending on the school of thought, or social circle this can be viewed as a reasonable restriction or a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.

[happygeek]

Well, the question is really this: if you can't trust someone who has been duly convicted of a violent felony with a gun, do you really trust them to walk freely among us? I mean, supposedly the whole idea of gun control is to let criminals out on parole to save money on prisons, but it's ok because they'll only commit another crime if they are in possession of a firearm and our laws will stop them from getting one. I mean, that's the idea of gun control, right?

[Old krow]

Well, the question is really this:

Um... no. I'm pretty sure I knew what my question was. :D I am not taking the position of an anti-gunner. Just posing that one question. Like I said, I'm only playing inside the confines of THAT question. I'm not leaving that question in any way shape or form to venture out in "gun ban" land, or why ban what, do ban or don't ban.

if you can't trust someone who has been duly convicted of a violent felony with a gun, do you really trust them to walk freely among us?

No, I do not. I agree with that to. I'm all for solving the "crime" issue and firmly believe that if that were successfully accomplished it would all be a mute point. I can't decide if I believe that will happen first or that I will receive social security.

Ok, let's play fair here. I'll give you one on credit, but you have to answer mine :rolleyes:

I mean, that's the idea of gun control, right?

In my opinion, no. That isn't the purpose of gun control at all. Let's analyze this statement; gun CONTROL. IMHO it's far more about control than it is anything else. There are a lot of correlations, pick one.

[happygeek]

In fact, I agree with most of what you wrote. The question is only really meant to ask if the "any gun, for any person, at any time" policy is always the right thing to do. Depending on the school of thought, or social circle this can be viewed as a reasonable restriction or a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.


I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating for "any gun, for any person, at any time", the only time I've even heard that phrase was when Sugerman or Helmke is throwing a strawman. I think pretty much everyone agrees with the idea of a prohibited persons list, but everyone also knows that making it a crime for a prohibited person to be in possession of a firearms doesn't actually stop them from coming into possession of a firearm. Brady Background Checks didn't do the trick either. So what's the next step? According to the anti-gunners the answer is to attack everyone's rights. We might buy a gun for a prohibited person, so there has to be a one gun a month law. But that doesn't do the trick. So we need a safe storage law, you know, because clearly prohibited persons are getting their guns by stealing them. Except that doesn't do the trick. So we need laws that mandate registration and licensing. Still the prohibited persons somehow get their hands on firearms. And on and on it goes. Don't tell the true believers that their gun control laws don't work, because the laws would work ... if only we'd pass one more.

Where does it end? Well, in the U.K. it ends in a ban. But the criminals still get their hands on guns. So they go after air pistols and kids toys.

If you can't trust a duly convicted person with a gun, do you really trust them to walk among us? Even if we bought the theory that gun control laws do work, what's to stop them from mugging your grandma with a machete, unless grandma is armed?

[stuckinsocal]

The story that anti gunners try to sell is that gun control works to reduce crime, keep guns "out of the wrong hands", and all this other BS. Take that away from them, and they no longer have any reason to tell people to convince them gun control is good. It doesn't work. So why keep it when it's blatently unconstitutional? Its only possible redeming quality (stopping "bad people" from obtaining guns) has been proven false, so that eliminates any arguement in favor of keeping such restrictions. I'm against restrictions such as the prohibited persons list and background checks. They don't work and are unconstitutional.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? According the the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear arms. If I must meet certain requirements to keep and bear those arms, my right to do so is being infringed. CCW permits are a perfect example. I must meet certain arbitrarily mandated requirements to exercise my right to bear arms. I must pay the government to bear arms. I must complete government approved training to exercise my right to bear arms. How can anyone in their right mind not call that an infringement of my right to bear arms?
My copy of the 2nd Amendment doesn't have any provisions for "reasonable restrictions". My belief is that if people don't like the wording of the 2nd Amendment, then change it by Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise leave it alone and simply obey what it says....."shall not be infringed"

[Old krow]

I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating for "any gun, for any person, at any time", the only time I've even heard that phrase was when Sugerman or Helmke is throwing a strawman.

Yes, that phrase was his, but it isn't the only place that it is used. And I didn't say that anyone was saying anything. That's the reason it was a question. I think that the concept of the Devil's Advocate might have been lost here. It means to take up a position that you do not necessarily agree with. It's primary purpose is to strengthen an argument.

[Diddlyv]

Actually there is no "need" to regulate fully automatic weapons. It is clear by reading federalist 46 that the intent was the armed citizenry out man and out gun the standing military just to prevent the government tyranny. The founding fathers believed all free men had the right and obligation to defend the country as well. They passed the Militia act of 1792 that required all men 18 to 45 report when called and bring the musket of current military pattern and 40 rounds of ammunition. These items were to be purchased by the individual unless there was hardship then the government would provide the arms. One could argue that a fully automatic m4 carbine is the musket of current military pattern.

The 1934 NFA actually did not regulate short barreled rifles, shotguns or machine guns. The law imposed registration and taxation on the transfer of said weapons.

In US v Miller no one actually appeared to challenge the case. The Supreme Court held rather erroneously (had they bothered to check with the military concerning shotguns in WWI or any other conflict) that the military utility of a short barreled shotgun. They obviously overlooked the confederate use of the 20 gauge LeMat Revolver in the War of Northern Aggression.

[hardworker]

You have to look at the difference in culture between then and now. Back then, the military musket doubled as a hunting musket. And people didn't go out back and play with it when they were bored. It was a tool. It'd be fine if people would just put the M4 in the closet and only use it when needed, like the Swiss, but they won't. Not without government regulation. And besides, just because we don't have M4's doesn't mean we're out gunned. Let's be honest, the real reason people want an automatic is because they're cool. I'll admit it, they're pretty awesome. But the notion of keeping the government in check with one is absurd. If the guns we have available don't do it, no gun can.

[happygeek]

Yes, that phrase was his, but it isn't the only place that it is used. And I didn't say that anyone was saying anything. That's the reason it was a question. I think that the concept of the Devil's Advocate might have been lost here. It means to take up a position that you do not necessarily agree with. It's primary purpose is to strengthen an argument.


I got the Devil's Advocate part, but you forgot to hyperventilate about the 30,000 gun deaths a year. You also forgot to insist repeatedly that the U.K. is a crime free utopia now that they've banned handguns and "assault weapons".

Speaking of England, I stumbled on this http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/r279.pdf while poking around Google. Apparently they've arrested people who were in possession of automatics (who got them for 800 to 4,000 pounds), you can get a 9mm handgun for as little as 150 pounds if it's used or 1,000 pounds if it's new, and there was a strong correlation between the drug market and firearms.

If gun control was going to work anywhere, you'd think it'd work in England. They are an island after all.

Cook and Ludwig did a study on the illegal gun market in Chicago which I recently finished reading. Among their findings was that, similar to England, the guns seemed to be easier to get ahold of than the ammo, gangs tended to have a much easier time getting guns than non-gang member criminals (England's site mentioned this too), and that older career criminals who tend to have more contacts in the underground had a much easier time getting ahold of guns than the younger non-gang member criminals.

I'm not sure how Cook and Ludwig's study helps either side of the argument all that much, there's bits in there that either side can trumpet. The author's conclusion was that the market is "thin" and that enforcement can make it thinner. I came away with the impression that the market is "thin" because the demand isn't any higher.

England's home office has a couple studies on this site that look interesting, looks like lots of stuff to poke through while I'm bored.

I'll wrap up my sidetrack into England's issues by quoting the conclusion to their 2006 Illegal Firearms study:


The illegal use of firearms is not a singular problem but is
complex, entrenched and poses significant challenges to
communities, police and policy makers. Some findings point
to clear recommendations, such as greater efforts to tackle
the availability and conversion of highly realistic imitation
firearms. Most, however, are more challenging and require
social and economic rather than technical solutions.

The emergence of a complex gun culture in which firearms
have become embedded within broader criminal lifestyles
suggests significant limitations to interventions which are
based on a rational choice understanding of offending. It
highlights the need to address the social and cultural
significance of offending behaviour such as gang conflict,
armed robbery and drug dealing. Furthermore, the
relationship between illegal firearms and crime is
constantly changing. Consequently, ongoing efforts are
required to keep abreast of changes to ensure that they are
responded to appropriately.

A number of areas for further research are proposed,
including further re s e a rch on the origins of purpose built
lethal firearms in the criminal economy and the
role of women in relation to the possession and use of
illegal firearms.


(Bolding done by me) It took them a decade after banning firearms to realize that crime isn't as simple as being caused by a gun and that you can't solve the problem of gang wars and black market in drugs related violence by banning guns.

[Sam1911]

It'd be fine if people would just put the M4 in the closet and only use it when needed, like the Swiss, but they won't. Not without government regulation.

What the (...this is the High Road...) HECK does that mean? Who's business is it if I or anyone else wants to get the M4, or any other arm, out of the closet and use it for any purpose that suits me?

And just which government regulation is it that stops folks from misusing arms?

[hardworker]

There isn't one. I've already said I don't think they should've capped production of auto's back in 1986. My point is, people go on and on about how auto's are needed to keep the government in check against tyranny, when in reality, they just want to have one because they're awesome. The American people are the most armed people in the world. Assuming you could ever mobilize the people, we've got the government outnumbered easily. The government would have to deploy the army on American soil to stop a revolution, and that would lead to an even bigger mess all around.

Basically, owning auto's is fine. Just don't try to call it anything but what it is: having awesome guns.

[AKElroy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

Site the source, please. I need to research this.

[Owen Sparks]

Yes, it says arms. The definition of "arms" is very vague. Do F16's count as arms? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and they chose full auto's.

Suppose you could buy an F-16? It would cost more than everybody on this thread will earn in their lifetime. Free market economics would take care of common criminals getting their hands on heavy weapons. Only a hand full of very rich people could buy and maintain something like that. I can't even afford a Barret light .50, much less an armored vehicle to mount it on.

[hardworker]

The thing about allowing the purchase of military hardware is that it allows a private individual/corporation to make outfit a private army.

[Old krow]

but you forgot to hyperventilate about the 30,000 gun deaths a year.

If I hyperventilated I would no longer be the Devil's Advocate, I would be the Devil.

After 1934 and before 1986 there were an extremely low number of deaths that resulted from automatic weapons. In fact, it was ridiculously low. In 1986 the pressed further measures anyway. I think that I read somewhere that as little as 3 people were killed during those years with a legally owned machine gun. It's pretty clear that they were NOT banned because they HAD done so much damage.

My answer to my own question would have been, yes restrict them, but with the following provisions;

1. The regulation that prohibits felons from owning firearms should have a sunset provision of no longer than ten years. In fact, any EO or Act passed should have one.
2. Not all felons deserve that being stripped of the same rights. The punishment should fit the crime.
3. The punishments still needs to fit the crime. If the Feds can step outside of the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms then they can also step outside to up the mandatory sentencing of violent crimes.
4. The Brady Campaign should help with the bill, funding, and strengthening the sentencing ( and lobby for it too) especially since their ultimate goal is to cut down on crime. ;)
5. Repeal the 1986 act since the total number of deaths wasn't really high enough to justify it in the first place. It was punishment before/in case of the crime.

I generally don't even try to play DA with the statistics because I personally do not believe that they put them together to make a case with them anyway. They're far more productive doing what they already do.

[hardworker]

I agree with much of your post. I don't know if it's the content, or just because Old Crow is my favorite bourbon. The problem with this country is that it's too easy to become a felon.

[Neverwinter]

Site the source, please. I need to research this.
monticello.org (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial#Panel_Four)
Digitized edition (http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=123634)

If gun control was going to work anywhere, you'd think it'd work in England. They are an island after all.An island connected to a large continent via a tunnel. It doesn't achieve sufficient geographic isolation. That LCAV thread linked a pdf which showed Hawaii as having the lowest gun death rate at 2.82 in 2007. As usual, they included suicides and legal interventions. With just the homicides, the rate goes even lower.

The problem with this country is that it's too easy to become a felon. Exactly. When the barrier is set low enough, it becomes easier to exclude the people from their rights as citizens.

[happygeek]

I'll have to look into Hawaii later. If an island out in the middle of the Pacific is the only place that gun control can work though, if it works there, how in God's name would it work in the Continental U.S.? We can't even stop guys from walking over the border.

Does England not do some sort of custom's check of traffic coming through their tunnel? If not, how do they expect their gun control to work?

Their study also mentioned that criminals had made some of their guns. One of their recommendations for reducing gun crime was a PR campaign on the inherent dangers to the firer of using a homemade firearm.

[the iron horse]

My grandfather always told that this was a free country until FDR became President.
He started the socialists wheels turning toward gun restrictions and a growing invasive federal government.

[Murphy4570]

The thing about allowing the purchase of military hardware is that it allows a private individual/corporation to make outfit a private army.

That is pretty much what the "militia" that is referred to in the 2A is. Non-federal troops, not under the control of the centralized gov't.

I don't see any issue with Citizens owning modern military hardware. As has been noted already, cost issues will keep larger armaments out of the reach of the majority of individuals. Not everyone can afford to put a shiny new M1A1 Abrams in their driveway (though that'd REALLY be "keeping up with the Joneses!!).

[Skribs]

The whole idea of the citizens being able to repel the army should they be mobilized against us by a tyrant is just absurd to me. I'm sorry, but even if it's entirely legal, how many civilians do you think are going to have the equipment and training necessary to take on body armor at extended ranges? And those people aren't going to all be in one place, but spread out over the country. Any groups that do get together are also not likely to be familiar with each other. A good team works as part of a whole; whereas a town hall meeting with gun owners is more likely to involve petty infighting about who knows more about tactics.

I'm not saying that we don't deserve the right to own guns, I'm just saying that the time in which we can realistically defend against a military operation with infantry weapons and civilian training is gone. In the past, artillery was cannons, operated by men standing next to it. Calvary was horses. Now you have armored vehicles, planes, armored artillery batteries that can fire from miles away, cruise missiles (even non-nuclear tipped)...I'm sorry but a neighborhood watch with M4s isn't going to do much.

That said, I personally think guns should be treated like cars. Both are very safe if used and maintained properly, but very dangerous otherwise. Everyone knows the saying "Don't drink and drive," and I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's a bad idea to drink and shoot. Both can be considered a deadly weapon if used for assault or homicide. I know it's a bit of a bizarre stretch, but for those who suggest just letting anyone get a gun (maybe not felons), would you also suggest just letting anyone get a car? By that I mean someone with no license, no training or experience, just someone walks into a dealership and drives off in their new car. They're likely to wreck it (maybe not kill themselves) by not knowing the proper right of way or understanding traffic signals.

Similarly, I don't see a problem with requiring people be trained with guns. There are 2 main types of people that I can see being dangerous with guns, those being the untrained and the violent. We can't always preempt violence, but if you get convicted of a felony you lose rights (although I will agree that maybe after 10 years of being released for a smaller felony it would be okay), but you can do your best to preempt a lack of training. If someone is forced to be taught proper gun safety and marksmanship before using them, is that a bad thing?

My point is that everyone else's right ends where mine begins. I don't want to be shot because some idiot thinks "I want to show everyone how big my barrel is by pointing my gun at them" and then accidentally pulls the trigger because he didn't have his finger outside the trigger guard. I don't want to see on the news that someone shot five people because he was being mugged and missed the perp, but hit the guys behind him.

So yes, I think it should be perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns, etc. However, I think before someone is allowed to purchase any firearm, they should have a license which states that they have:
-No felonies within the past X years
-Are qualified on a marksmanship course
-Are familiar with laws regarding deadly force
-Are familiar with proper safety practices and basic cleaning/maintenance

We require people to be familiar with traffic laws, and give a competency test for driving skills. Why not do the same for firearms?

[JShirley]

In the 17 and 1800s, no special licensing was needed for a ship-owner to outfit his vessel with defensive weaponry that was at least as good as anything in the US inventory. The owner of a ship these days would have to jump through hoops and wait a minimum of several months to purchase the least effective defensive anti-aircraft weaponry available. Moderately effective light automatic cannon would require a $200 PER ROUND tax, and the lightest truly effective aircraft defense, the government would not allow private owners to possess.

What most gun owners seem to fail to grasp is that ships of war, the only strategic asset in existence when the Constitution was written, were placed under Congressional control. By natural extrapolation, it should then be obvious that the rights of US citizens include owning the type of weapons the individual modern soldier might possess, but do not include strategic assets such as warplanes, nuclear devices, or ballistic missiles.

Further, blue-skying about the neato-keen weaponry that could be owned "if we just had the money" shows an ignorance of the fact that US corporations must get. government approval before selling advanced weaponry to anyone other than the US military, and purchases of advanced weaponry for importation must be also approved.

In a nutshell, a proper understanding of the Constitution in the context of the time will show that each citizen today should at least be able to own automatic weapons, man-portable rockets, and light mortars.

John

[yeti]

would you also suggest just letting anyone get a car? By that I mean someone with no license, no training or experience,

Where is this magical land that requires training, experience or a license to purchase a car?

[DT Guy]

So yes, I think it should be perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns, etc. However, I think before someone is allowed to purchase any firearm, they should have a license which states that they have:
-No felonies within the past X years
-Are qualified on a marksmanship course
-Are familiar with laws regarding deadly force
-Are familiar with proper safety practices and basic cleaning/maintenance

OK, and I get to determine the test. You don't pass it.

See how that works? Conditions and requirements regarding something that a small, but shrieking, part of the population wants to ban get ugly pretty fast. Just look at NY, where they're trying to use your employment history to determine if you can buy a pistol.

As far as not being able to repel the modern military with conventional small arms, you might want to head out to Afghanistan. A bunch of poor mountain-dwellers seem to be doing just that....


Larry

[Skribs]

Okay, so maybe you don't have to have a license to buy a car, but you do have to have a license to drive one. The point is, I've never heard of anyone saying that it's an infringement of their rights to be required to take a class and a test in order to legally drive. Similarly, I don't see how it would be an infringement on rights to have the same level of requirements for owning a gun. With as bad as most drivers are, imagine how they would be without any experience, training, and only a vague understanding of what signals mean (e.g. they understand turn signals, "stop", and the stoplights, but don't get anything else). There would be a lot of wrecks. I know that I wouldn't want anyone unfamiliar with gun safety to be allowed to have a gun, simply because that is how accidents happen. It's not that hard to learn gun safety (I've learned most of it just by paying attention), but a lot of people think it's okay to wave a gun around and treat loaded guns as if they're unloaded (opposite of the correct rule).

DT Guy, you're taking my argument and pushing it to the extreme, and then attacking the result. I'm not saying that someone needs to have 1000 rounds spent, achieve a 1" group at 100 yards with a pistol, and have a 2-year degree or better from a Law School in order to pass. I'm saying something like: Hitting center of mass at 7 yards. Have taken a course (could even be a 15-minute course) on basic maintenance. Tested on the related laws and safety practices (to the same standard as a driver's license). I don't know about where you live, but in WA it's a 25-question test and you need to get 80% or better. Now, if every 16 year old can do that to drive, I don't see why people who are 18 or 21 can't do that to get a gun.

[Robert]

infringement of their rights to be required to take a class and a test in order to legally drive.Driving is a privilege, not a right. Any argument based on that will be flawed from the get go.
There would be a lot of wrecks.
Um, there already are. Cars kill more people every year than guns. As a former driving instructor and CO State Trooper I can tell you that the State mandated standards for driver's education have not changed very much since the 1920's, at least in Colorado. I worked for a private company that held it's students to a much higher standard than that of the state.
Similarly, I don't see how it would be an infringement on rights to have the same level of requirements for owning a gun.
Purists will tell you that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is very clear that the ability to keep and bear arms is a right which shall not be infringed upon by the gov't. That the right to defend one's self is a right given to us by God and was simply acknowledged by the Bill of Rights.

[AKElroy]

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Are you using this quote to show that Jefferson supported viewing OUR constitution as a "living document"? Hardly. This was his argument towards his rejection of the magna carta & the british monarchy, and that he did not undertake that effort lightly.

[Old krow]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Any argument based on that will be flawed from the get go.

I believe that this is correct. They're not even on the same playing field as one another.

OK, and I get to determine the test. You don't pass it.

That would probably be exactly what happened. But, that doesn't mean that I would disagree with having a class. In fact, I do think we need one, but, with a few provisions

-The Classes should exclude marksmanship test/scoring. Replace with a "firearms heritage" portion.
-The Classes should be administered by the states and not the Fed. It is not the right or responsibility to dictate any of this. In fact, their power is very limited according to the Constitution.
-Everyone should have to take it, not just gun owners. Everyone that fits the bill of US Code 10 should have to take it.
-It should not be a requirement to own a gun, it should be a requirement to be a citizen.
-It should be given in English.

Leave the felony part out for now because that part really deserves it's own attention separate from anything else until it gets fixed.

As far as a nation of citizens fending off a tyrant, I think that it is very possible. IMHO one of the biggest, if not THE biggest problems that we face is the fact that we have lost sight of the way that this is supposed to work.

[Sam1911]

Okay, so maybe you don't have to have a license to buy a car, but you do have to have a license to drive one. Nope. You have to have a license to operate one on the state/federal roadways. Own it and drive it all you want on private property. Completely invalid at point one.

(Leaving alone as O.T. for THR the question of whether licensing the ability to drive on the public-owned roads is an infringement on your right to travel...)

Further, ownership and operation of a motor vehicle is not an uninfringable right enumerated in the Constitution -- and ownership of a firearm IS. You cannot apply the same standards even if autos didn't contribute to deaths (they do...LOTS) and if many guns were misused in accidental deaths (and they aren't -- those numbers are low and falling all the time, even without mandatory safety training). So, again, completely invalid at point two.

DT Guy, you're taking my argument and pushing it to the extreme, and then attacking the result.
That's only because he's watched politicians and government types long enough to know exactly what happens when things are regulated "for the public good."

(For further reading, research the terms "Poll Tax" and "Jim Crow." History is such a good teacher.)

[hso]

You don't even have to study the excesses throughout history or in other governments, just look at what governments have actually done concerning the 2A rights of the citizens here in the U.S..

Local governments have tried to make possession outright illegal, or so restrictive as to be illegal (e.g. San Francisco passed an outright ban on handguns that the court had to strike down, DC banned handguns until the SCOTUS had to rule, Chicago, etc.) Permits just to purchase or possess are in place in various states (e.g. FOID cards). When did we need prior approval and have to pay the state to exercise an enumerated right like free speech or practice of religion? Carry isn't even permitted in states like IL and WI and is so restricted in "shall issue" states like CA and NJ to be effectively denied (anytime you unevenly apply the permission to exercise a right, the government has denied the right). Some shall issue and may issue states have set course requirements and fee prices so high as to deny the right to low income citizens. Again, when did we decide that you had to have the right income to even get permission to exercise a right? Voting was denied to many based on property ownership and income just to deny the right to ethnic groups when race could no longer be used to deny the right.

We don't even have to use the ruductio-ad-absurdum argument method to come up with non-existent illustrative extremes when we have absurd real laws in existence that deny your 2A rights.

Let's just look at raw facts. The reason most people who want to put fetters on the exercise of the 2A is that it's for the public health, but they don't bother to research the question of whether there's any real hazard to the public. Firearms homicide data does not show that there's a threat to public health. States with high levels of firearms ownership have lower firearms death rates than some with very low rates of ownership. This shows that the presence of firearms doesn't equal high firearms death rates. States with heavy restrictions on firearms ownership and carry have higher firearms death rates than those with high ownership and minimal restrictions. Again showing that death rates don't equate to ownership rates AND that the absence of government interference in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not equal high firearms death rates nor does the presence of government interference in the exercise of the RKBA equate to lower firearms death rates when compared to the states with minimal interference. Rates of firearms ownership have gone up, the number of states that have changed from may to shall issue have gone up, the number of states that now allow carry have gone up and the violent crime rate has gone down. The removal of restrictions on firearms ownership should have increased the rate of firearms deaths, but that isn't the case. The rate of firearms deaths have gone down at the same time the restrictions on firearms ownership and carry have been removed. There may not be a causal relationship, but an honest look at the facts reveals that restrictions on firearms ownership and carry don't improve public health in this sense and therefore restricting the ownership and carry of firearms by citizens in general does nothing to improve public health. Detailed review of the available data shows what it has always shown, criminal on criminal firearms crime is a significant percentage of firearms injuries/deaths. Detailed review of the available data shows that statistically the means of suicide shifts, but the overall rate of suicides doesn't. There is no valid public health causal relationship between restricting your right to firearms and reducing the rate of deaths and injuries so there argument that it is for the public good is not based on fact, but is instead a sloppily established opinion.

If we see the problem with going down the road of limiting the right to keep and bear arms as well as realizing that the public health argument is based on sloppy reasoning and not on data then why make the argument that there's any reason to restrict your right to keep and bear arms?

[Sam1911]

Another angle is that, for a safety course requirement to be legally enforceable there has to be some record of who has taken that training. And that would be de facto registration of gun owners.

[TexasBill]

Driving on public roads is regulated because by doing so, the driver is a potential threat to other operators of motor vehicles. A person who owns a gun that is kept at home is not. The use of that gun in a manner that poses at potential threat to others is already covered in most areas.

Every crime used to justify gun control laws is already a crime. Under federal law and in most states, the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is already either an aggravating factor requiring a heavier sentence or a separate offense with mandatory prison time. Gun control is unnecessary because the sanctions for using a gun in a crime are already in place. Since these laws do not deter the criminal, they serve only to allow the state to control or criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens. As such, they are undesirable.

Of all the causes of crime, such as rage, jealousy, poverty, racial background, etc., none have been outlawed. Implements that facilitate crime -- firearms, big knives, clubs, burglar tools and so forth -- are the only things that have been criminalized or controlled and those controls have shown little or no effect on the rate or number of crimes because the criminal has already decided to commit the crime. Most criminals, even the dumb ones seen on TV, don't believe they will be caught and many of them are not. Detroit's rate of clearance in murder cases is not exactly awe-inspiring. However, since the root causes of crime are difficult, expensive or controversial to address, the easy out is to add another layer of prohibitions, this time on the tools used by criminals.

And among legislators, the desire for easy answers that cost little to implement is almost as great as the desire to receive contributions. In Texas, the most recent state constitution says: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." That was in 1876. Shortly after that constitution was ratified, the Legislature "regulated the wearing of arms" right out of existence, making it crime to carry a handgun (and a host of other implements) openly or concealed, essentially under any circumstances. The traveling exemption was poorly defined and was not an affirmative defense (i.e., did not prevent an arrest). That sorry state of affairs lasted almost to the end of the 20th Century through many sessions of the legislature and occupants of the Governor's Mansion. And just because they were often Democrats doesn't mean they were liberals: look at where most of your Southern Republicans came from. These were Southern Democrats, a breed entirely apart from those in the North and as conservative as the day is long.

Curiously, we always could (and still can) carry rifles and shotguns almost anywhere we want, but even going to the shooting range or gun shop with a handgun wasn't without risk. I can sling my Beretta CX4 over my shoulder and walk into the state capitol building as long as I am friendly and non-threatening. But heaven help me if I don't cover up my Beretta PX4. The reason one seldom sees a gun in the rear window of a pickup these days is the fear the gun will be stolen, not any concern about legal difficulties.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was proposed and enacted largely because of the gangster activities during Prohibition. One has to wonder if the United States had not created Prohibition, which spawned much of the gangster activity because of the huge profits to be made (not unlike today's drug cartels), whether the NFA would have been enacted. Incidentally, it should be remembered that pistols and revolvers were also included in the original version of the Act. It's impossible to say, for sure, because there was also a major crime wave fueled by the Depression that was another factor.

Incidentally one does have to wonder about the new breed of SBS - the 14-inch-barreled guns used by the military and police. Shouldn't these also be removed from the purview of the Act?

Finally, neither major political party has a monopoly on gun control. The Acts of 1934 and 1968 could have disappeared overnight with an act of of any of Congresses seated in the past 42 years. The restriction on new fully-automatic weapons could go the same way. As you will note, no Congress, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, has done this. Any President, from Nixon to Obama, could have stood up and said, "These laws don't work and I urge Congress to repeal them." Not one did.

[stuckinsocal]

Unless I waive my rights, any government-mandated training, licensing, testing, etc. is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringend" don't you understand? Any mandatory requirement that I have to meet before I can buy or carry a gun means that the government can create reqirements so draconian that nobody can own a gun. That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect against. And it's exactly what's happend. Just look at the CCW laws in California. People need "good cause" to obtain a permit here, and that "good cause" is based on the arbitrary decision of the Sheriff and his designees. Yeah, they issue permits, but not unless you meet the arbitrary and ever-changing standards of the Sheriff. And for all the shall issue states, what happenes when they jack up the prices so high that nobody can afford a permit? They'll issue the permit as long as you meet the standards created by law...and can pay the insanely expensive permit fee.

[TexasBill]

What part of "shall not be infringend" don't you understand?

I am almost tired of seeing that phrase; it's abundantly clear they don't understand any of it.

But what if we went by their book and we formed a militia? What if we all got together and formed the United States Irregulars, held regular, but non-governmental, meetings and training sessions, with the current military-style weapons (a cal. 223 black rifle and a 9mm pistol), wore "home-spun" (or store-bought) camo, had regular home-town drills (got to be "well-regulated") practiced call-outs in the middle of the night, set up phone trees and took an oath to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic, etc.

By its definition, the militia is made up of civilians who are not members of a governmental military force, which disqualifies both the Army and National Guard.

Playing by their rules, every "citizen soldier" is not only allowed to bear arms, they are required to bear arms and it doesn't matter where they live, New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C. or La-La Land, laws restricting their right and duty to bear arms are unconstitutional and need not be obeyed (untaxed M4s for everyone).

What could the government or the antis say? Citizens are not only exercising their rights, they are performing their constitutional duty. They have elected their local officers and have a code of conduct, they train regularly, supply their own weapons and ammunition, use current military-style weapons and carry them in order to be ready at a moment's notice. Can't get much more "militia" than that!

[happygeek]

The antis would write a breathless piece of sensationalism like this: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2022516,00.html

The whole theory that only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms is kinda pointless since we are the militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


According to the government all able bodied males who are U.S. citizens between the age of 17 and 45 are the unorganized militia. So I guess according to anti-gun theory, only males between the ages of 17 and 45 and the right to keep and bear arms. Isn't that view kinda prejudiced against women?

[TexasBill]

Wouldn't that age range supersede the 18/21 restrictions of the GCA '68?

[Zombie-Hunter]

Hello guys and gals, I am a reader of forums and I was pressured by my conscience to join and post here on this topic. Its hard to believe gun people are willing to deny others of the same rights they enjoy.

I read comments all the time about how if you’re going to carry dress nice, heavily tattooed people and the like should be questioned about their firearm purely by judging their looks. (because it makes all gun owners look bad) Or the carry laws don’t go far enough and more training or schooling is in order to exercise a right. Again its hard to believe gun people reflect background checks, tax stamps or asking states for the right to carry as not being infringed on.

Too many personal opinions and not enough calls from gun owners to hold true to our forefathers. I’m not going to get into all the reasons TPTB want to remove arms from citizens, its clearly not a issue about public safety.
IT IS BASED ON FEAR OF THE ARMED CITIZEN.

Anyway I digress, The point I was getting at is this right belongs to all Americans. If a person commit’s a crime, then for the entire punishment his constitutional rights are temporary waved. Bottom line criminals should be locked up, if ever found rehabilitated and released all constitutional rights should be returned. Don’t you see what is happening? More and more petty crap is being labeled felony & is being used as gun control on American citizens.

Kinda sad to read our gun people on board after board backing to trample on the rights of their country men. Hard to believe especially from gun friendly folks that post in favor of citizens losing their fair rights because of a Government plan to make some people second class citizens which is what being a felon means. Look criminals should be locked away period. And if you’re not locked away then apparently you are not a threat and as such should not be treated like you are.

Don’t you find it funny a person can be rehabilitated pay their debt to society yet never ever be forgiven?
Yet expected to pay taxes but not vote, expected to live honorably but not totally free.
If that doesn’t stink to you, then your horse is too high to smell it.

[Gouranga]

Zombie hunter. I am hearing you I really am and I am careful in any thoughts on regulation of arms. However, what I fear is a person in suburbia with R1a lots (maybe 20 feet between homes), who goes to the store picks up a .50 cal and 1200 rounds and goes on his back deck to clean and make sure the ammo fits (yes I have heard of folks with NO training doing this with 22's and 12 gauges) and mayhem ensues.

I mean let's be honest, in the stix, well have at it, you are not going to hurt anyone but yourself and that is fine. This example may be an extreme but I have heard of this happening. With a 12 gauge you are going to get 1 round off with your ND, which is worse enough. But the guy with a full auto who freaks and keeps the trigger depressed spraying a full magazine into his neighborhood, is a real possibility.

I would prefer we had some mandated training, but what I fear is:

1. Who establishes , defines, and runs the training?
2. How do we track that someone is trained without ending up with what amounts to a national firearms ownership registry?

I would not restrict the use or ownership of those weapons, but I would like to see training. I would like to point out, my fear here is NOT on the actual intent of an armed citizen. I trust the vast majority of my fellow Americans have an honorable intent, what I question is people taking on more than they can handle. I see if everyday with guys who pick up HUGE campers with no idea how to tow, or the guy who buys himself a high powered bass boat with no training and takes out a dock or a boatload of people when he loses control driving in a manner he should not have even considered.

Now the answers to 1 and 2 seem to be the biggest obstacles for most of us when it comes to some type of mandated training. Is there any intelligent way to answer those?

[Sky]

A well regulated Militia; bet they have every members name, address, and type of arms owned in some fed registry just in case...of what?

Wasn't there a case not to long ago where a local Militia membership got rounded up on conspiracy/rico/trumped up charges or maybe they were all true....I was not there.

National emergency; turn in your guns.....Katrina?

There are so many good post in this thread...Sam and Hso both Salute; not to mention several other well stated opinions. Elections are coming soon and regardless of the rumors of voter fraud and rigged machines get out and vote! Double check your results and try and make a difference. Divided we fall.

[Zombie-Hunter]

Your idea reminds me of a post I read on another forum where a poster thought it was a great idea to have the gun stores teach each new buyer how to operate the weapon. ( of course this is the intelligent answer to your question.)
But we have training for a license to drive yet people are killed from reckless drivers all the time, Did these people start out reckless or just have a brain fart and for an instance became reckless?
Would this idea make the gun store liable? No more than the DMV is for passing the driver and giving him a license.

Training is what happens when you want to apply for a HCP, I don’t really see this as much of an infringement as I do about the part on asking the state for the authority to carry. But since it is all rolled up into one it is infringement. Voiding both 1 & 2 you can’t grant authority to any agency and not expect it to get abused. So the answer is NO to 1 & 2 leave the reasonability to the people and if they hurt someone (included me) It is their price to pay. I hardly think 1 & 2 is a cure all, but it is common sense and believe it helped me understand laws & reasonability.
But the only valid way if one wanted to install 1 & 2 is to keep it out of Governments hands, If it can’t be then it needs to be scraped.
Remember Police are trained more so than citizens yet they have ND’s regularly and in some cases kill people. No one is immune to ND even with training. I am sure you seen the video of the DEA agent in the class room who shot himself….LOL as funny as that is, it could have killed someone.
Some how I am betting if it did, his price to pay would have been a whole lot less than a citizen with a brain fart.

Just for argument sake my post was more about losing/infringing the right to arms than about training.
Also remember that states issue Permits not License, there is a BIG difference in the language.

I agree with the fact firearm ownership is a responsibly since SKY brought it up it is the same as voting…..

1 Educate yourself
2 Vote with sound mind
3 Vote the candidate and their record, not the Party
4 If your unsure, due your duty and DO NOT VOTE!

Works with Firearms too, personal reasonability or leave it alone

[ScratchnDent]

I will never be convinced that any type of mandatory training or licensing is anything other than an infringement of rights.

[Neverwinter]

Okay, so maybe you don't have to have a license to buy a car, but you do have to have a license to drive one. The point is, I've never heard of anyone saying that it's an infringement of their rights to be required to take a class and a test in order to legally drive. Similarly, I don't see how it would be an infringement on rights to have the same level of requirements for owning a gun. With as bad as most drivers are, imagine how they would be without any experience, training, and only a vague understanding of what signals mean (e.g. they understand turn signals, "stop", and the stoplights, but don't get anything else). There would be a lot of wrecks. I know that I wouldn't want anyone unfamiliar with gun safety to be allowed to have a gun, simply because that is how accidents happen. It's not that hard to learn gun safety (I've learned most of it just by paying attention), but a lot of people think it's okay to wave a gun around and treat loaded guns as if they're unloaded (opposite of the correct rule).

DT Guy, you're taking my argument and pushing it to the extreme, and then attacking the result. I'm not saying that someone needs to have 1000 rounds spent, achieve a 1" group at 100 yards with a pistol, and have a 2-year degree or better from a Law School in order to pass. I'm saying something like: Hitting center of mass at 7 yards. Have taken a course (could even be a 15-minute course) on basic maintenance. Tested on the related laws and safety practices (to the same standard as a driver's license). I don't know about where you live, but in WA it's a 25-question test and you need to get 80% or better. Now, if every 16 year old can do that to drive, I don't see why people who are 18 or 21 can't do that to get a gun.
In contrast to driving a car, keeping and bearing arms is a right enumerated in the Constitution. Even with the best of intentions, it would be easy to place restrictions on ownership which result in a curtailing of that right with undesired consequences.

People are bad drivers due to a number of factors, but judgment is a large factor. You'll find that many of the drivers on the road who have passed the driving test which requires knowledge of basic traffic laws do not follow many of the rules. Many don't signal or fail to stop for stop signs. Others will perform valid maneuvers but in situations where doing so is unsafe. All of the testing in the world will not prevent a person from behaving badly on the road when it comes down to practicing what they were quizzed on.

The existence of a test itself is problematic. Historically, literacy tests were used to deny minorities the right to vote.

I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."Are you using this quote to show that Jefferson supported viewing OUR constitution as a "living document"? Hardly. This was his argument towards his rejection of the magna carta & the british monarchy, and that he did not undertake that effort lightly.
I was quoting the opinion of a learned man who was also one of the framers of our constitution. While the context of this particular letter was regarding the Magna Carta, the principles espoused do not suddenly become invalid for other constitutions, US or otherwise.

[happygeek]

Zombie hunter. I am hearing you I really am and I am careful in any thoughts on regulation of arms. However, what I fear is a person in suburbia with R1a lots (maybe 20 feet between homes), who goes to the store picks up a .50 cal and 1200 rounds and goes on his back deck to clean and make sure the ammo fits (yes I have heard of folks with NO training doing this with 22's and 12 gauges) and mayhem ensues.


What everyone keeps forgetting is the sheer cost of this stuff, which exerts a sort of "restriction" all its own. People keep saying "well, if we get rid of all restrictions where do we end? Are people allowed to own nukes?"

A bolt action single shot .50 BMG costs, what, 2 or 3 grand? A semi-auto .50 rifle costs upwards of 8 grand. A M2 BMG costs around $14,000 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm), weighs just over 80 pounds, and is over 5 feet long. It's not something that average joe would have the money, storage space, or inclination to run out and buy. Let's not forget the sheer cost to shoot the thing on top of that initial 14 grand, .50 BMG goes for, what, $3 a round. Squeezing off one little burst from his 14 thousand dollar gun at the range would run average joe $15 or more.

I just don't see many people other than rich gun hobbyists running out to buy a M2.

[hardworker]

It's because the government doesn't rich corporations running out and buying advanced weaponry to outfit their own private army.

[happygeek]

Say again? Have you not heard of Blackwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide)? They were a private corporation with their own "private army" who was contracted by the government.

They haven't been big news since the wind down in Iraq and they since changed their name to Xe, but they were huge a couple years ago. The need for well trained and well armed security guards in Iraq for all sorts of things ranging from construction projects to embassies created a huge demand for companies like Blackwater. There were numerous other similar companies, Blackwater was just the most famous [or infamous].

By the way, Blackwater/Xe is also a privately held company, i.e. they don't sell stocks, i.e. they're not required to publish data on their income and such for the public to see and they don't have public shareholders to answer to.

[dmancornell]

What everyone keeps forgetting is the sheer cost of this stuff, which exerts a sort of "restriction" all its own.

Price inflation of firearms is largely driven by government over-regulation of manufacturers (criminal ATF stings), unconstitutional distortion of supply and demand (import bans and NFA34) and destruction of taxpayer property (cutting up the M14 stockpiles).

The deliberate destruction of the US dollar by the federal reserve and congress is also playing a role.

[happygeek]

The 14 grand I threw out there for a M2 is apparently how much the government pays for a M2 BMG. The 1,200 rounds of .50 BMG rounds from the earlier example worrying that his average joe neighbor would AD into his house would run another $3,600 or so. Ignoring the NFA and the 86 Hughes Amendment we're looking at a $17,600 price tag. This is before average joe tries to find a place where he can shoot .50 BMG rounds on auto, a range built for such a purpose would probably charge a hefty membership fee.

So yeah, we're still looking at something that pretty much self restricts itself to rich gun hobbyists.

Almost forgot, average joe's also going to need a tripod, which adds even more weight, bulk, and cost.

[dmancornell]

The 14 grand I threw out there for a M2 is apparently how much the government pays for a M2 BMG

The same government that pays $600 for toilet seats?

Besides, the issue here is not cost, it's the principle of not allowing a corrupt, fascist federal government to usurp your constitutional rights.

[happygeek]

Besides, the issue here is not cost, it's the principle of not allowing a corrupt, fascist federal government to usurp your constitutional rights.


Agree 100%.

I'm just trying to make the point that very few people would be running out to buy M2 BMGs if the 86 Hughes Amendment and the NFA were done away with. Ditto for miniguns, Mk19s, and all those other examples that people throw out there when they're arguing for the NFA: "would you be in favor of letting your neighbor own X!? What if he ADs!?"

A lot of people would probably get M4A1s though. I for one would love to own a M4A1 lower and a 22LR upper that could stand up to automatic fire.

Would your neighbor AD with a M4A1? How many people are ADing their AR15s currently?

[dmancornell]

all those other examples that people throw out there when they're arguing for the NFA: "would you be in favor of letting your neighbor own X!? What if he ADs!?"

Exactly, and I bet all the people making that argument are fine with government thugs owning the exact same weaponry, even though government has murdered far more people than any other entity in the last 100 years. It's not even close.

[stuckinsocal]

Hello guys and gals, I am a reader of forums and I was pressured by my conscience to join and post here on this topic. Its hard to believe gun people are willing to deny others of the same rights they enjoy.

I read comments all the time about how if you’re going to carry dress nice, heavily tattooed people and the like should be questioned about their firearm purely by judging their looks. (because it makes all gun owners look bad) Or the carry laws don’t go far enough and more training or schooling is in order to exercise a right. Again its hard to believe gun people reflect background checks, tax stamps or asking states for the right to carry as not being infringed on.

Too many personal opinions and not enough calls from gun owners to hold true to our forefathers. I’m not going to get into all the reasons TPTB want to remove arms from citizens, its clearly not a issue about public safety.
IT IS BASED ON FEAR OF THE ARMED CITIZEN.

Anyway I digress, The point I was getting at is this right belongs to all Americans. If a person commit’s a crime, then for the entire punishment his constitutional rights are temporary waved. Bottom line criminals should be locked up, if ever found rehabilitated and released all constitutional rights should be returned. Don’t you see what is happening? More and more petty crap is being labeled felony & is being used as gun control on American citizens.

Kinda sad to read our gun people on board after board backing to trample on the rights of their country men. Hard to believe especially from gun friendly folks that post in favor of citizens losing their fair rights because of a Government plan to make some people second class citizens which is what being a felon means. Look criminals should be locked away period. And if you’re not locked away then apparently you are not a threat and as such should not be treated like you are.

Don’t you find it funny a person can be rehabilitated pay their debt to society yet never ever be forgiven?
Yet expected to pay taxes but not vote, expected to live honorably but not totally free.
If that doesn’t stink to you, then your horse is too high to smell it.
Good first post and welcome to The High Road. Apparently many people don't seem to understand the idea of "paying your deby to society" anymore. As I understand it, you take your punishment and then you're free. You've paid your debt and now you're free to live like anyone else. You shouldn't have restrictions placed on your right to vote, keep and bear arms, free speech, etc. I think it's wrong and immoral.
I keep hearing all these "buts" in regards to mandatory training: But what if the guy doesn't know how to use his gun and shoots me? But what if....
That's all BS, and frankly, it's pretty pathetic coming from people who supposedly support the 2nd Amendment. In reality, they don't support it. Many supposedly pro gun people were against Arizona's Constitutional carry law because it doesn't require training. Why exactly should I consider them pro gun when they so blatently want to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment? The answer is I shouldn't. You see the same thing coming from anti gun groups like the Bradys and from people in places like here in California. Really the only difference is that the Bradys are more extreme in that they want to restrict and circumvent the 2nd Amendment even more than a lot of "pro gun" people.

[Hatterasguy]

Yes, it says arms. The definition of "arms" is very vague. Do F16's count as arms? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and they chose full auto's.

You can own an F16.

OTOH were all supposed to technically be in militias but who is, so its a two way street.

2A according to how its been interpreted protects like kind arms to those in current military use. So in theory we should be able to own M4's and hunting rifles can be restricted since they are not protected. 2A isn't about hunting or self defense from criminals.

[Hatterasguy]

Say again? Have you not heard of Blackwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide)? They were a private corporation with their own "private army" who was contracted by the government.

They haven't been big news since the wind down in Iraq and they since changed their name to Xe, but they were huge a couple years ago. The need for well trained and well armed security guards in Iraq for all sorts of things ranging from construction projects to embassies created a huge demand for companies like Blackwater. There were numerous other similar companies, Blackwater was just the most famous [or infamous].

By the way, Blackwater/Xe is also a privately held company, i.e. they don't sell stocks, i.e. they're not required to publish data on their income and such for the public to see and they don't have public shareholders to answer to.
__________________

But yes why mess around with guns when you can hire your own private army.

Didn't Blackwater spring from the old EO?