Are we fighting the wrong battles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.
With lawsuits such as the SAF lawsuit in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement we are asking SCOTUS to narrowly decide if cities can have restrictions on who they allow to carry weapons with a permit.


However, even if we win that battle it means that we need a permit to carry a weapon.


No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.


So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?


And are we currently fighting the wrong battles?
.
 
In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.
 
usmarine0352_2005 writes:



No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.


So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?

He closes with the following: "And are we currently fighting the wrong battles", which might prove to be a lot more than simply an interesting, provocative question.


LHRGunslinger responds as follows:

In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.
-----------------------

Which restrictions would he keep, aside from some that most would likely consider obvious, and why? I wonder.
 
In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.
Click to expand...
"Known" by WHOM?

He doesn't need to be "known" in order to have a fundamental right abridged. He needs to be CONVICTED.
 
Lets start at the top. Obvious to one man is not necessarily so for another. I do not know every firearm law in my state let alone the country so if I miss something please forgive me. Now here's a list of what I can think of off the top of my head

>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 with permit.

>Background check to prevent those who are a danger to themselves and others from obtaining a weapon

>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.

>Open carry permitted everywhere (excluding aforementioned locations)

>NFA restrictions seem to make sense except for the once you convert a pistol to a rifle you can't switch it back bit. that's gotta go.

>I'd mandate that police have to wear class IIIa ballistic protection with balistic plates front and back

>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.

That's all I can think of right now. I know alot (if not all) of my ideas are not going to be well received. Firearms were designed from the get go as lethal weapons. They need to be treated with respect and care.

@Deanimator: Or be compelled under the law to register himself as a sex offender. It was illustrating a point.

I do not ask anyone to agree with me, but I do ask that you try and look at things from a different point of view

This is all I have to say on this issue. I will not feed the trolls nor will I build a bandwagon for people to jump on.
 
Last edited:
It's easy to spot the new guys, isn't it?

You are buying into the antis' logic. Why on earth is it a good thing to restrict carry on school property? In making it illegal, exactly who is it you are stopping from committing crimes on school grounds?

How many rounds is a nice round number for people to carry? In agreeing with this arbitrary number for magazine capacity, you are siding with the antis that limited capacity makes guns less lethal. (I carry a 1911 with 9 rounds, I don't carry something with a larger magazine because I have faith in my training to shoot well and reload. NOT because higher capacity guns are......unsafe.) Exactly what good do you think is being done by limiting capacity?

Treating with respect and care and infringing on rights are two completely different things. No, I will NEVER see things from this point of view.
 
> I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm.

How could you possibly need 15!! Are you going up against an army or something?
Why would you need to shoot someone more then once? (end of sarcasm)

I don't think someone should decide how many rounds I need. If you think 15 is what
you need, great. But let others make their own decisions.
 
Honestly I would not restrict carry in schools because of crimes. I think it's a good idea because I know that when I was in school (6 years ago) people I knew liked poking around the teachers personal property. I like the idea because it'd avoid a student accidentally finding the firearm and giving the antis more leverage to restrict carry further.

No I don't think restricting mag caps makes a gun less lethal. It makes it easier for the police to manuver because it forces any "crazed gunmen" to spend more time reloading.

And I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend unto the death your right to say it with a gun in your hand.

Now how about instead of getting upset with me for being enough of a free thinker to come up with my own ideas of how things should be done and come up with some of your own.
 
So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?
Click to expand...
Because winning small battles is much, MUCH better than losing big ones.

Your question is like asking me why I don't just pay off my house instead of making monthly payments. Sure, it would save me money on interest and it would keep me from having to deal with the payments on a regular basis for the next few decades. The only problem with your "strategy" is that I can't pay off my house because I don't have a monster boatload of cash available.

Similarly, the problem with attacking laws like the ones you mention is that while it sounds good, we just couldn't win. Minor details and all that...
 
IMO,

Legal age to carry 18. IF we decide to keep with the 21, then it ABSOLUTELY needs to have a military exemption. There is no reason why an 18 yr old can be trusted with a M16, grenades and with making a commitment to career which endangers their life (defending US) and cannot be trusted with a firearm when in the states.

Background check..yeah, there are those who cannot and should not be trusted with firearms. However, this needs to be done VERY carefully. It is extreme to declare someones rights invalid. It should be done in extreme cases.

On schools, this needs to go. What if I drive my child to school? Now I have to leave a firearm at home, drive to school, then drive home to get it, etc. It is a restriction that does nothing to make the schools safer. I have yet to see a case where someone would have shot up a school but decided not to because it was illegal to take the gun there.

>mag sizes...definitely not. There are many reasons for a larger clip. For one, range time. I find it easier to put in a 30rd clip in my AR for shooting vs the 4 rnd clip I keep in it while hunting. I have 15 +1 in my 40. Which comes in handy on the range as well. Also, there are documented cases of LEO's and normal citizens getting in defense situations where more than a clip is needed. Also, more importantly, does keeping law abiding citizens from having large clips make the world a safer place? IMO what criminals do, irrelevant cause they will do it anyway. I CCW my fullsize 40 so putting a larger clip, not practical for me, so I do not do it. I would not deny others that right.

The one opinion i have which would be unpopular here though is on the background checks. I would deny violent felons from ever having a firearm legally again. They paid their debt to society in jail and probation, however, IMO, they have shown a clear lack of appropriate self control and I think the potential danger they pose to society is too great..

Oh also anything declared an "Assault weapon" is garbage. This rediculous notion they are someone more dangerous than any other weapon in a shooters hand, is garbage. All firearms are lethal.
 
...would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket?
Click to expand...


First of all, how would I SEE the pistol in his pocket?

Secondly, how will a law prohibiting him from having one PREVENT him from having one?


...instead of getting upset with me for being enough of a free thinker to come up with my own ideas of how things should be done and come up with some of your own.
Click to expand...

Some of us have done quite a lot of "free thinking" to get to the point where we realize that restrictive firearm laws are INEFFECTIVE - and only serve to restrict those that abide by the laws.

We won't be spending any time at all coming up with some of our own.
 
Last edited:
Are we fighting the wrong battles? Yes
Are we fighting the necessary battles? Yes

The fact is that no the right to carry should not have a permit attached to it, yet it does anyway. In some jurisdictions however there isn't even a real way to get a permit to exercise the right to carry a firearm, or even a way to legally obtain some firearms.

So while it is a worthy goal to see the entire permit to carry system struck down, right now what we need to do is give everyone access to that right at least. It's a multi-step process.

Also to the poster that said firearm regulations are necessary, I see that you are new so your confusion is understandable. Let me give an analogy; some people probably cannot consume alcohol as a part of their court probation or court ordered rehab, so by your logic everyone that can drink alcohol needs to get registered and have a background check every time they buy a beer to make sure those that cannot consume alcohol do not obtain it.
 
I'd like to eventually see all firearms deregulated and proliferated to the point where they're as ubiquitous and easy to acquire as cell phones (and can be carried anywhere by anyone without permission from the government).
 
@ General Geoff: That's one of my less popular ideas. Seeing as if that happened about.....oh....half the worlds population would be gone in a week. Oh Natural Selection how do I love thee.

As long as there are 2 people left in the world somebody is gonna want somebody dead.
 
Seeing as if that happened about.....oh....half the worlds population would be gone in a week. Oh Natural Selection how do I love thee.
Click to expand...

Strange, I don't seem to recall any references to half of the United States' population being perpetually gunned down prior to 1968, when most firearms were completely and totally unregulated by the federal government. Or prior to 1934, when you could mail order a machine gun and have it arrive at your door, no paperwork, no background checks, not even proof of age required (and you could buy a disposable silencer for it at the local hardware store to boot). And to carry it further, during these times Vermont had no restrictions on people 16 years of age and older carrying whatever they wished, anywhere they wanted, open or concealed. According to your hypothesis, Vermont should have been a perpetual bloodbath.

It just doesn't happen that way.
 
I will try to continue sleeping at night knowing what you think of me.

I carry a gun to pick up my kids at school every day. I took guns to school as shop projects all the time in high school. I am not the problem. If you are willing to let the antis chip away at your rights and tell yourself it's ok and that it's ALL they want from you, then you certainly aren't part of the solution.
 
What we should have, but will certainly never get in my lifetime anyway, is an OBJECTIVE TEST to determine a person's capability for informed, rational thinking. To pass the test, a person would have to be pretty high up on the scale of social awareness (that is, have a low likelihood of causing harm to, or fear in another person).

A person inclined toward non-consensual sex acts with anyone else would fail. A public figure, or public servant, or public service person -- such as a teacher -- would fail if capable of exposing a lethal weapon to a non-rational person (such as a minor student who would probably not pass the test for rational thinking in his/her own right). Any person who gets irrational -- drunk, stoned, or with "the rapture" -- would fail.

A person who performs a violent act in SELF-defense, or defense of another (presumed) innocent, would pass the test.

Things would get sticky when it came to using the test to winnow voters. What is an informed rational decision when it comes to politics and voting?

I have no idea what the test would look like or consist of, how it would be administered, or by whom, or what the consequences of failure would be (exile to a reservation in northern Nevada, maybe).

Yes, we are probably fighting the wrong battles...
 
I have no animosity, anger, or any strong emotion either way. I respect your opinion. You're entitled to it. Like I said before I may not agree with what you say but I will defend unto death your right to say it with a gun in your hand.
 
If you think about it, guns were never a real threat or problem in society untill the anti-gun people started screaming and yelling about guns.:what:
 
What we should have, but will certainly never get in my lifetime anyway, is an OBJECTIVE TEST to determine a person's capability for informed, rational thinking.
Click to expand...

Rights are not given to someone after they pass a test. Rights are inherent to ALL people. Such a test is morally reprehensible.
 
LHRGunslinger, restrictions only negatively impact law-abiding citizens and curtail their natural right to self-defense. Criminals will simply do whatever they want regarding firearms because they don't obey laws, being criminals and all. They'll only get busted when they've already committed other crimes, such as murder, using firearms. You knew that your point of view wouldn't be well received, and the reasons are that it doesn't make sense because restrictions are ineffective in preventing crime, and it plays right into the hands of those who oppose our RKBA and right of self-defense (they'll chip away until we have nothing left).
 
>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, positively, no, never, ever. As to why I think so?

(1) If I, or my wife, have to respond in the night to a home invasion or whatever, it will likely be with only the magazine in the gun, and no reloads. And your hypothetical 15 rounds includes not just the rounds you expend, but the rounds you want to have left in the gun while waiting for the police to arrive in the unlikely event you have to use it.

(2) Magazine capacity is much more relevant for a defender than it is for an attacker. An attacker can plan ahead and carry as many 10- or 15-round magazines as he/she wants (the worst mass murder using a gun in U.S. history was committed with a 15-round 9mm and ten or twenty magazines), it takes only a second or two to change magazines, and the attacker can plan reloads in advance. Not so the defender.

(3) Consider that your local police officer has 45 to 60 rounds ready to go in the pistol and on the belt, and she/he has body armor and armed backup only minutes away. You won't be that well equipped.

If you are comfortable with a 15-round magazine, fine! I have absolutely no problem with that. But the carbine in my safe is loaded with a 20-round magazine, and most of the magazines I own for it are 30-rounders. We will keep those, thanks.

>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.
Click to expand...
So what do I do if I'm a CHL holder and have a child that I drop off and pick up from school every day? Ask the school crossing guard to hold my 9mm while I go pick up my kid, I'll just be a minute? I also don't think that the prohibition on carrying into post offices, etc. makes any sense, since anyone with ill intent will carry anyway, whereas a woman might *need* a firearm walking across a parking lot to check her P.O. box after getting off a late shift. I think that rule just penalizes the people who aren't a problem.

Finally, if by "bar" you mean "a place that serves alcohol" then we have another problem, because most decent restaurants serve alcohol and a lot of them have bars. I certainly wouldn't drink while carrying and I don't go to saloons, but the "you can't even see anyone drinking alcohol if you're carrying" argument doesn't make much sense to me. If you're not drinking, but want to take your family to a nice restaurant or you want to visit a sports "bar" and have a hot dog and a Pepsi while watching ESPN, how is that a problem?
 
I will try to continue sleeping at night knowing what you think of me.

I carry a gun to pick up my kids at school every day. I took guns to school as shop projects all the time in high school. I am not the problem. If you are willing to let the antis chip away at your rights and tell yourself it's ok and that it's ALL they want from you, then you certainly aren't part of the solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top