Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

[Sol]

It is very clear to me that reading over this thread again, that people won't agree on things, and that's fine, we could debate for 153 pages and not accomplish anything.

Instead of us disagreeing on things, let's find things to agree with.

I think that if a state was to have permit-less carry, that states should have a mandatory firearms education program in high school.

That way no one is "limited" on when they can have a gun, and they can have a gun as soon as they are 18 like everyone else.

In fact, one could agree that such a program might bring more new hunters, plinkers, and gun carrying persons to the world of guns.

I totally get where you are coming from, I too was once young(er) and idealistic.

In a perfect world....

But it's not, and this is where we are at.
The more power and less restriction on citizens is a good thing. Less power, less mother may I from the government is a good thing.

 

[No4Mk1*]

If a drivers license was not required there would be no significant change in driving. Parents would still teach their kids to drive safely. Drunks would still crash and get arrested for DUI. The unsafe elderly do not get their licenses taken away by the government now anyways, their keys are taken away by family. Careless drivers would get weeded out by injury or financial loss due to car damage.

I have a job, a family, and contribute to society. How long should I go to prison if I ignore your law by carrying without "permission"? How long should I go to prison if I move to California and bring my AR-15 and 30 round mags with me?

 

[USAF_Vet]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[thirty-ought-six]

I didn't want to say this until now but I feel like it was needed to be said.

I had a cousin, 20 years ago, at the age of 16, he gets bored... looks around at stuff in his Dad's bedroom. He happened to find a gun in his dad's night stand.

His dad was a LEO.

Before you know it, he's dead. It killed him so quick there wasn't even blood loss.

This kid was perfectly "sane", never was depressed, so suicide was ruled out.

Now, do you suppose, if at some point in this kid's life, he had a basic firearms training course, say in the 8th grade, would of it prevented his death?

I can't go back in time and change things, but I have a good feeling had this kid learned about guns in school, it might of saved his own life.

As I said earlier...I think firearms safety should be taught in school if states want to go to permit-less cary.

There are 89 guns per 100 people, that means a lot of kids are exposed to firearms. I really think education about them should be a lesson plan in every school in America.

 

[No4Mk1*]

Your 1st amendment examples list actions which are actively harming or threatening to harm others. The equivalent would be pulling your carry gun and pointing at someone or giving it to a child to play with. Bearing arms peacefully is not threatening others.

Regarding school, sure teach gun safety there, but just because the govt. refuses to teach gun safety in school it does not give them the right to deny my right to bear arms.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Thirty-ought: I think you missed the portion of the Bill of Rights that begins with "Congress shall make no law". Private enterprise can do whatever they wish because the public has the ability to voluntarily comply or walk away and allow the business to reap the benefits or punishments for their actions. The government, on the other hand, doesn't play well with those who don't comply with their demands. Hopefully some day you will be able to figure that out.

If I were you I would address my hostility towards an uncle who was not responsible enough to teach his own offspring about firearms. My kids and my grandkids (12 & 14) all know and understand how to properly handle firearms. They can also hit a 12 oz soda can at 100 yards with a .22 rifle. Can you?

 

[Sam1911]

The issue with that is there are so many things that do infringe on the 2A, such as:

Sure there are. We FIGHT AGAINST that. You're directly arguing for MORE restrictions on many/most of us who live in states which have seen fit to ABANDON the training and/or licensing idea, AND

(... once more, for the prize...)

Have seen NO increase in ANY of the negative factors you're claiming will follow.

Basically, your theory is WRONG, based on all the evidence we have, from our collection of 50 states. You are INCORRECT in your assumption, yet you hold that your belief is fact.

Ponder that for a while. Don't tell me, "oh we'll just never agree." It doesn't matter if you believe one thing and I believe another. There are FACTS. And they refute you.



On to the details...

In some states, you must be 18 or 21 to own a gun depending on the type.

Ok. Actually, in ALL states, for handguns, but go on...

Scotus rules you are born with rights.

No, they didn't. The framers of our Constitution recognized and stated that ALL MEN are born with rights. SCOTUS didn't have to invent that.

Then you would have a group of people spouting "hey, let's lower that age to 12". After all. nothing in the 2A defines an age, right?

And so? In many states that is lawful for ownership of a rifle. And if that's comfortable for the citizens of those states, why does it scare you?

Nothing in the 2A says you can't take a loaded gun into your place of employment, yet tons of places WILL NOT let you take a loaded gun with you to work.

See, you're very lost here. Your employer's property rules do not infringe your 2nd Amendment rights. They CAN'T. The 2nd Amendment ONLY restricts what THE GOVERNMENT can do, not what contract you voluntarily enter into with an employer.

Everything comes with limits, you can't drive 120 mph in a 65mph zone. You can't drive with a BAC over .08 in my state.

Off topic, irrelevant.

Now I'm not saying "let's add limits to the 2A",

Actually, you have. Unless you're saying that you're ONLY against the reduction of training requirements and licensing in YOUR state, but the rest of the nation's citizens may be trusted to do as they wish. What's wrong with Texans that you don't trust them with the same rights?

but there are currently a list of limits that are legally set in place. Why aren't people complaining about those?

Are you friggin' kidding me? What else do we DO here but fight (and complain) against all those other restrictions??? Have you wandered into an unfamiliar spot? Did you think this was Bed, Bath, And Beyond? That's our raison d'etre.

Why can't I take my loaded gun in my pocket to work?

I don't know. I can. Seems like that would be between you and your employer. Specifically NOT a 2nd Amendment issue.

Why did I have to be 21 to buy my gun?

I didn't. Don't know about you. So what?

Why can't I take my gun into my local bank?

Don't know. I can. Open carry it, conceal it, carry in a rifle if I really feel like it. So what?

Why can't I shoot a deer with my gun out of my car?

State game law issue. Not in ANY way a 2nd Amendment issue.

All of those infringe the rights by the 2A.

Not even close. You probably should read a lot and think a lot and understand all of these issues better before you make up your mind and argue your points so doggedly. When you can't define the scope of the issue you're debating, it's hard to bring you up to the point where your opinions can be argued on actual merits.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Someone here has a very meager understanding of constitutional rights, their limits, and what role government has in enforcing those limits.

It is all put forth in the United States Constitution, which I strongly suggest you read before posting further.

 

[splithoof]

I don't like the government butting into my life any more than the rest of us here on this forum. One possible solution that might work (don't flame out, this is just a thought) would be for all the gun manufactures and distributors to form an alliance without any input from government, wherein those manufactures and distributors came up with their own plan for educating gun owners on safety procedures and basic gun handling. They could administer it any way they wish, but I would suggest that it be done at point of sale for new owners. Far fetched? Yea totally, but better than doing nothing and waiting until it becomes legislated. Retailers could also be encouraged to get on board, perhaps with a financial incentive from the manufacturers. NONE OF THE ABOVE should be a government mandate, something perhaps some of us can agree upon.

 

[pdsmith505]

In some states, you must be 18 or 21 to own a gun depending on the type.

Scotus rules you are born with rights.

Then you would have a group of people spouting "hey, let's lower that age to 12". After all. nothing in the 2A defines an age, right?

There is a court case out of Texas challenging the 21 year thing.

As for minors, their parents, as guardians, are charged with providing the necessary guidance and limitations for their children. That's where it should end.

Nothing in the 2A says you can't take a loaded gun into your place of employment, yet tons of places WILL NOT let you take a loaded gun with you to work.

I suppose property rights (read: freedom) dictate what you allow to occur on your property. If an employer states that no one is allowed on the property with a firearm, they are not infringing on your rights, you don't have to be there or work there. However, f you bring the firearm onto someones property against their will, you are infringing on their rights by forcing them to accept your presence with a gun.

Everything comes with limits, you can't drive 120 mph in a 65mph zone. You can't drive with a BAC over .08 in my state.

And you also can't shoot someone without good cause. What's your point?

Now I'm not saying "let's add limits to the 2A", but there are currently a list of limits that are legally set in place. Why aren't people complaining about those?

Perhaps you don't spend much time in the Legal section... lots of people are complaining about lots of limits: permits needed for carry, tax stamps needed for suppressors, arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, the closed registry for machine guns, etc.

Why can't I take my loaded gun in my pocket to work?

Because you chose to be in the employ of someone who doesn't want people carrying on their property.

Why did I have to be 21 to buy my gun?

Because lawmakers have violated your rights.

Why can't I take my gun into my local bank?

1) Property rights, again.

And

2) Apparently two states that have made it illegal, in violation of the constitution.

Why can't I shoot a deer with my gun out of my car?

For one, shooting falls under neither keep nor bear, and for two, hunting isn't a right in the first place.

All of those infringe the rights by the 2A.

Correction: SOME of those infringe. And, much like many other laws in question before the courts, just because it is law, does not make it constitutional.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

However, if you bring the firearm onto someones property against their will, you are infringing on their rights by forcing them to accept your presence with a gun.

Actually, that's not true in 22 states.


http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/10/22-states-now-say-businesses-can-ban-guns-property/

 

[pdsmith505]

Actually, that's not true in 22 states.


http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/10/22...guns-property/

Permission granted to read the whole thing, shipmate.

Correction: SOME of those infringe. And, much like many other laws in question before the courts, just because it is law, does not make it constitutional.

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, that's not true in 22 states.

A hotly debated topic here. You're conflating what someone might feel their property rights should be with what the law says about carrying a gun.

In NO state in the USA can you enter a person's property and remain there if they ask you to leave. That's trespassing. It doesn't matter if it's your gun or your bad breath they don't like. You still must leave if they say so.

In SOME states, putting up a sign or having a policy (or even NOT having given express permission) is enough to make a property owner's will have immediate weight of law. As in, it is a crime to carry there against the owner's wishes.

In other states, it is not a specific crime to do that (a "gun-buster" sign has no legal weight), but you STILL must obey a direct request to leave.



In our more philosophical moments we sometimes debate if entering someone's property with a HIDDEN weapon, if you know they don't want weapons there, violates an actual RIGHT, and weather that "right" supersedes you own right to privacy in your personal possessions. Or whether any of those things are really "rights" at all, or just politenesses, courtesies and social mores.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

I see that Thirty ought six and jcwit wants to infringe on everyones rights and tell them what they can own and carry and when and how they can carry. They sound like politiciacn and anti gunners to me, with all the "lets do it for the kids", and standing on the graves of dead children. Maybe you two should run for president, you are sounding a lot like the current one. SMH Thirty ought six you have been put in your place many times since this thread started and have made it perfectly clear which side you are on, maybe a pro gun forum isn't the right place for you. I am sure there are several anti gun forums who will welcome your views with open arms and praise your views. I would direct you to them, but I don't participate in controlling others lives and straw man arguments, but if you google it I am sure you can find your true place. You have a nice day.

 

[splithoof]

On the SplitHoof Ranch, with few exceptions, the 2nd ammendment does not apply. Only when guests have demonstrated to me that they are competent to my standards with safe gun handling will I permit them to be armed. This goes for anyone hunting, using the range facilities, or coming over to the chow hall for campfire dinner. If they don't like it, they need not enter the property.
I have never had an issue with this policy, but would not hesitate to summon the local L.E. agency if it ever went that far.

 

[barnbwt]

"Now, do you suppose, if at some point in this kid's life, he had a basic firearms training course, say in the 8th grade, would of it prevented his death?"
All I know is I wouldn't dream of looking down the barrel of any firearm or muzzle loader without checking the chamber to my satisfaction, if I were in my right mind. But the only reason that is the case is because I was taught what guns were, how they worked, what they were capable of, and how to handle them safely. Boy Scouts, with 22LR single shot bolt rifles. I never was taught what to do with pistols, so I avoided them like the plague until I was out of college and made a point of learning to use one properly (now that I could afford one ). Lord help me if I'd unexpectedly come across a loaded one as a kid without the benefit of such a pre-determined mindset.

My condolences for the traumatizing loss of your friend, and I fully agree that compulsory school education on firearms safety/use would prevent a great many tragedies (never all, though). So recognize that the same people advocating for "responsible gun sense" today are the very ones who drove shooting instruction and education from the classroom decades ago. Many Americans are now three or more generations removed from the last family member who could instruct them in responsible, safe gun use.

TCB

"Actually, that's not true in 22 states."
Just googled "Jan Morgan Media" ...yeargh

 

[barnbwt]

"maybe a pro gun forum isn't the right place for you"

Enough of that.

 

[manithree]

Lets look at the government for a second...

The first amendment says "freedom of speech", however even the supreme court ruled that is is not "absolute".

It does not cover:

-Fighting words
-True threats
- National Security
-Child pornography.
-Etc.

So there you have it folks, our own government added a list of "but's" to the amendment, freedom of speech, but not when it comes to threats, national security, etc.

So why is it OK for the people of this forum, who have no governmental power whatsover to say "there can be no but's" when it comes to the 2A?

The list of "but's" is common sense. Ok, don't blab about stuff that is a matter of security, don't threaten people, etc.

You've answered your own question if you look closely. None of the accepted restrictions on freedom of speech are of the prior restraint variety. If you misuse your right to free speech, you could be punished for it, but the but the government can't restrict you to a certain number of words a day. If you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you'll get in trouble, but the government can't force you to duct tape your mouth shut before you enter a crowded theater. The 2A is the only amendment that some people think prior restraint is OK. It's not.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

and tell them what they can own

You can't own a nuke, you can't own a SAM or MANPADS, and you can't own guns over a certain caliber.

All of those are "arms" and we as American's should be allowed to own them.


Now go take that up on Capitol hill.

 

[LocoGringo]

You can't own a nuke, you can't own a SAM or MANPADS, and you can't own guns over a certain caliber.

All of those are "arms" and we as American's should be allowed to own them.


Now go take that up on Capitol hill.

Your severely limited understanding of the 2nd amendment has been illustrated numerously in this thread, yet you still don't educate yourself more before you post. Several places have been recommended for you to look before posting further, but you insist on flaunting your ignorance.

The second amendment, as founded, meant for the average citizen to be equally equipped as the average soldier. How many soldiers do you see running around with a nuke? If you truly want to understand the second amendment and all of the arguments behind it from the founding, read a book called "The Second Amendment Primer".

Please, stop posting ignorance.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

Most people who will go through the trouble of carrying a gun legally constitutionally carry or not are going to be proficient with a firearm and aware of the law.

Darwin weeds out people who are dumb enough to stick a gun in their britches without knowing how to handle the gun or who are not aware of the law. Look at the pictures of people who shoot themselves down there. Most of them look like the types that can find a way to break an anvil.

I hate that it casts a bad light on gun owners. but would you rather Darwin weeds these people out with a car? Think of the carnage!

 

[barnbwt]

"I think that if a state was to have permit-less carry, that states should have a mandatory firearms education program in high school."
You state this as though these are two opposing/complementing features in a proper gun policy scheme, and yet the politics are such that each item would be vehemently opposed by anyone not considered "radical pro-gun" at this time. You see the quandary we're in.

"You can't own a nuke, you can't own a SAM or MANPADS, and you can't own guns over a certain caliber."
Wow, 364 results for "nuke" on this site alone; that's one for every day in the year! (hint: there's 365 results, now ). You can actually own all those things, and more, they are just very, very expensive (just like everything good in life ). More difficult is finding a place that can properly accommodate their use or storage, which is most likely the real reason Bill Gates doesn't develop a nuke and start pushing the Washington State government around directly.

"All of those are "arms" and we as American's should be allowed to own them."
Despite the inability to hug your children with nuclear arms, nukes aren't typically considered "arms" as the facilities/equipment pertaining to their upkeep and use makes them crew-served. Although, crew served field artillery were frequently owned by private citizens during and after the Revolutionary War, if you need a frame of reference. Although, a great line from a cartoon comes to mind when considering the misuse of nukes; "Blow up the Earth? Have you really thought this through? I mean, where are you gonna live?" No one smart enough to amass the resources to build a large-scale weapon would dare squander it with actual use. Governments/peoples, however...

"Most people who will go through the trouble of carrying a gun legally constitutionally carry or not are going to be proficient with a firearm and aware of the law."
If you've never carried, it's a bit of a pain in the rear (sometimes literally). Perhaps purse carry could be done so carelessly, but most likely not holstered weapons (and purse guns tend to be revolvers for a number of reasons, including they are easiest for lazy shooters to manipulate, which has a certain safety effect itself due to a very heavy DA trigger). Thoughtless or careless people tend to not abide by laws in the first place, and just do what "feels right" to them at any given moment.

TCB

 

[mnrivrat]

My apoligy for not reading all the comments in this thread before posting. I'm just a little to ill at the momment to take the time.

OP said :

Why encourage Bubba

I got this far in the OP's post before my aggrivation kicked in.

So a few questions for him:

1.) Who do you define as Bubba ?
2.) Why do you assume that Bubba knows less than you regarding the matter ?
3.) Why should Bubba not have constitutional rights ?

I read on to post #23

CajunBass said :

I've said it before and I'll say it here. It seems to me that those who favor some kind of "training" want to draw that line just below where they are at the time. "We're OK, but those "those people" over there aren't good enough."

So who do you want to set the standards?

CajunBass ---- Well Said ! Thanks

 

[morcey2]

I'm sorry about your cousin, but it sounds to me like his LEO dad didn't educate him about guns. I've raised 5 kids to adulthood around lots of guns and every single one of them has been thoroughly educated about them. They've been around them so much that they don't hold enough of a 'mystique' that they play with them when they're bored. I educated them. I trained them. I think I did pretty well.

As an NRA instructor, I could make a killing with mandatory training for gun ownership. I think every gun owner should have at least a minimum amount of training. I think they should seek it out of their own free will and not by some government mandate. It doesn't have to be an NRA course or even a formal class of any type. A couple of hours with a good friend who is firearms-literate and patient is usually good enough.

Just my $0.02.

Matt

 

[thirty-ought-six]

I think they should seek it out of their own free will and not by some government mandate.

The problem is what I said earlier..

While most people will do things by their own free will, it's the other 20% (just a wild guess) that won't, hence the reasoning for a mandate.

It's pretty much common sense you wouldn't dump your car's oil in the crick nearby, but people do hence why the EPA made it illegal to do so.

You see, the theory of "everybody can take care of themselves" might make sense in a perfect world, but the reality is, we live far from a perfect world, and from dealing with the public nearly 5 years, is that their are as one poster put it, "trainloads of stupid people", then you have people who just don't give a crap.

The same thing applies to guns. Sure, most people would go out of their way and get training, but it's the idiots that wouldn't and that's the problem.

Years ago people could pee in a jar and call it "medicine". There was all kinds of BS medicine sold at that time. You can thank President Roosevelt for singing into law the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic act in 1938.

If you study history, the government regulating things was not "just because" or to be a pain in the rear, it's because people do stupid stuff.

There will always be stupid people as long as there are people.