Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to do the same with driving a car and ontop of a written test (like gun permits) you need to pass a practical called a driving test. What is so wrong with teaching people the rules and the laws of hunting in the state and municipalities you hunt in? What is so wrong knowing the protocol to hunt in an area? Reminder, not all areas are open land for hunting.
Also if you are not here at city-data to argue, why are you here? Often discussions about guns turn into arguments based on how passionate people get over the topic.
Are you assuming all gun owners are hunters and need such training? I own a pistol and a shot gun for self protection and home protection. These weapons spend the majority of their time in my private home. I should not be required to undergo any specific training, besides what type of training is needed for a shot gun? They are designed to shoot wide and hard and immobilize the given target with little or no aiming, perfect for what I would use it for but I pray I never have to.
Owing a gun (arms) is a given right that the state and federal government cannot infringed upon as those rights did not come from the government but rather must be respected by the government.
Operating a vehicle is not in the bill of rights. Also “operating” a vehicle on a public roadway affects others and I am not “operating” my guns in public areas unless I am forced to out of the fear of my life by a criminal pushing me to. So these two things (autos and guns) therefore are not even comparable.
If I am forced to “operate” my weapon in a public area and there is any collateral damage then it’s the criminals fault and not mine. I have no intentions of instigating any gun fight. If other nut jobs out there are unable to control their arms or their use that it their issues but do not infringe on my rights for other individuals actions regardless of how many nuts there doing this.
As for arguing with others, not me! I’ll agree to disagree and move on and walk away. I have much more important things to do and I come here for relaxation and discussions; not arguments or drama.
Are you assuming all gun owners are hunters and need such training? I own a pistol and a shot gun for self protection and home protection. These weapons spend the majority of their time in my private home. I should not be required to undergo any specific training, besides what type of training is needed for a shot gun? They are designed to shoot wide and hard and immobilize the given target with little or no aiming, perfect for what I would use it for but I pray I never have to.
No, but a vast majority are just that. My father for instance don't have guns for protection and never did, he just hunted. My brother hunted too but feels the need for a pistol for protection. I'm not saying a hunter safety course should be mandatory but perhaps we should see personal protection.
I am also interested in hearing what state you live in, Arizona is a well-known open carry state and like once every few weeks you hear about say a road rage shooting situation similar to the case in the Waffle House.
Quote:
Owing a gun (arms) is a given right that the state and federal government cannot infringed upon as those rights did not come from the government but rather must be respected by the government.
Rights can and will be infringed on especially if you infringe on another's rights. See Clear and Present Danger for the First Amendment. Also the Second Amendment allowed guns but for a state government back militia.
Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Tell me where it says you can own arms outside of a regulate militia?
Quote:
Operating a vehicle is not in the bill of rights. Also “operating” a vehicle on a public roadway affects others and I am not “operating” my guns in public areas unless I am forced to out of the fear of my life by a criminal pushing me to. So these two things (autos and guns) therefore are not even comparable.
A privilege is a special entitlement granted to a restricted group or person, either by birth or on a conditional basis, and can be revoked. By contrast, a right is irrevocable and inherently held by all human beings.
The muddy part is in cases of gun violence. Violent felons were banned from owning guns (and ammunition) in 1934 while it was expanded to all felons in 1968. Owning a Gun - Felony Restrictions Now if owning guns was truly a right, wouldn't this the be unconsititutional? Or is this a case where one's individual's legal right is trumped by a collection of individuals' natural rights?
Quote:
If I am forced to “operate” my weapon in a public area and there is any collateral damage then it’s the criminals fault and not mine. I have no intentions of instigating any gun fight. If other nut jobs out there are unable to control their arms or their use that it their issues but do not infringe on my rights for other individuals actions regardless of how many nuts there doing this.
Fine but unless you knowingly shoot civilians (ie fire and miss with people behind the shooter you knew were there) you shouldn't be on the hook. Think of Good Samaritan laws for instance, you are not on the hook for breaking ribs to do say Heimlich or CPR but breaking ribs to work on a leg injury you would be because it isn't a typical treatment to the symptoms.
Quote:
As for arguing with others, not me! I’ll agree to disagree and move on and walk away. I have much more important things to do and I come here for relaxation and discussions; not arguments or drama.
I wish more (including myself) would steer away from it. I usually give up when people start using ad hom attacks.
No, but a vast majority are just that. My father for instance don't have guns for protection and never did, he just hunted. My brother hunted too but feels the need for a pistol for protection. I'm not saying a hunter safety course should be mandatory but perhaps we should see personal protection.
I am also interested in hearing what state you live in, Arizona is a well-known open carry state and like once every few weeks you hear about say a road rage shooting situation similar to the case in the Waffle House.
Rights can and will be infringed on especially if you infringe on another's rights. See Clear and Present Danger for the First Amendment. Also the Second Amendment allowed guns but for a state government back militia.
Tell me where it says you can own arms outside of a regulate militia?
The muddy part is in cases of gun violence. Violent felons were banned from owning guns (and ammunition) in 1934 while it was expanded to all felons in 1968. Owning a Gun - Felony Restrictions Now if owning guns was truly a right, wouldn't this the be unconsititutional? Or is this a case where one's individual's legal right is trumped by a collection of individuals' natural rights?
Fine but unless you knowingly shoot civilians (ie fire and miss with people behind the shooter you knew were there) you shouldn't be on the hook. Think of Good Samaritan laws for instance, you are not on the hook for breaking ribs to do say Heimlich or CPR but breaking ribs to work on a leg injury you would be because it isn't a typical treatment to the symptoms.
I wish more (including myself) would steer away from it. I usually give up when people start using ad hom attacks.
Hey MKPunk
We're getting off topic and into a debate on gun rights so lets stop and get back on topic. Let me just quickly say that my views on such things are different than some others so there will always be disagreements or debates and therefore it pointless to carry on. For example I feel even convicted criminals out on the streets should have both their voting rights and the ability to own and carry weapons. Regarding their voting rights being removed, how is it that they can be taxed yet they dotn get a vote? thats taxation without representation IMO. For me it comes down to a simple philosophy of if these individuals are safe enough to be free in society then they should also not have their gun rights infringed upon. Of course Id rather see them locked up for life but obviously thats not a decision thats been given to me to oversee.
In regards to the Waffle House shooter, he was in his right to carry a gun but the moment he crossed the line and violated another human life and took that life he automatically IMO forfeited his own life.
We can argue mitigating circumstances all day long but for me personally once you take another life regardless of how or why (in a criminal action) then you forfeit your own life. Since there are witnesses to the crime there is no doubt he did it and even if he has a brain injury or a bad childhood so what, he should be hung from the closest tree and there should be immediate closure. Tax payers should not foot the bill to warehouse and care for people like this.
Again whats the old saying about opinions and everybody having them
We're getting off topic and into a debate on gun rights so lets stop and get back on topic. Let me just quickly say that my views on such things are different than some others so there will always be disagreements or debates and therefore it pointless to carry on. For example I feel even convicted criminals out on the streets should have both their voting rights and the ability to own and carry weapons. Regarding their voting rights being removed, how is it that they can be taxed yet they dotn get a vote? thats taxation without representation IMO. For me it comes down to a simple philosophy of if these individuals are safe enough to be free in society then they should also not have their gun rights infringed upon. Of course Id rather see them locked up for life but obviously thats not a decision thats been given to me to oversee.
This is a loaded reply that goes all over the place with felons (like the Waffle House shooter (which was where the gun and felon debate came from.)) I'll try to break it up as best I can...
Firstly do you realize why the violent felons laws and then the non-violent felon laws were enacted in 1934 and 1968 respectfully? In the 1920's and 30's we saw the rise of organized crime due to prohibition and turf wars of that sort. This lead many to want to fight back against it including the end of prohibition, bans of automatic weapons (Tommy guns were popular with gangsters at the time) and also banning felons who committed violent crimes from obtaining guns. In the 1960's with the drug culture that started with the beat-niks and came to a head with the hippies, the older generations (silents, greatests, etc.) fought back on the counter culture. This was just a long-standing fear that had credence with those on speed having violent episodes (remember there were speed kills signs all over the place in LA towards the end of the 1960's.) Then when you throw in the race riots of the mid/late 1960's and you do see some reason for the fear that can lead to banning cons from having guns.
As for allowing them to have guns upon release from prison, you need to change the logic of prison in America. Prison is used as a form of punishment with no rehabilitation and a HUGE stigma, especially with hiring. The hiring stigma ends up much more effective during economic recessions like we still are in. Until we make it so that felons can get jobs (most importantly troubled youth) we are bound to create career criminals. Perhaps I'd be willing to temporarily ban them the right.
Voting rights for convicts, I am conflicted on. Remember the original voters were not just white males but white males who owned land. So anyone who wasn't white, male and owned land; would not have been able to vote. Thankfully we can vote so long as one is a (non-felon) citizen. That said this practice is actually constitutional and as found to be with Richardson v. Ramirez, provided it isn't racially motivated as found in Hunter v. Underwood. As of right now, Maine and Vermont allow former felons to vote (by absentee ballots) so if you want to vote as a felon who served their time, perhaps move there.
NOTE: I am not old enough to live in the 1920's, 30's or even the 60's but history books and documentaries are a wonderful thing.
Quote:
In regards to the Waffle House shooter, he was in his right to carry a gun but the moment he crossed the line and violated another human life and took that life he automatically IMO forfeited his own life.
But didn't you, yourself said that felons should be allowed to have guns? In all likelihood, we could see the Waffle House shooter get murder-2 or man-1, especially on a plee-bargain and parolled in some 20/25 years and by your own idea allowed to carry (and vote) again.
Quote:
We can argue mitigating circumstances all day long but for me personally once you take another life regardless of how or why (in a criminal action) then you forfeit your own life. Since there are witnesses to the crime there is no doubt he did it and even if he has a brain injury or a bad childhood so what, he should be hung from the closest tree and there should be immediate closure. Tax payers should not foot the bill to warehouse and care for people like this.
The problem is everyone is owed a court case per due process. I may agree that this guy should be hung but once they surrendered to police, killing him until found guilty, sentenced to death and the state/federal case win in the appeals process, he can't be killed without infringing on his civil liberties.
Quote:
Again whats the old saying about opinions and everybody having them
That they are like bungholes, everyone has one an they all stink.
Oh well just another statistic in the USA! And people are worried about a few terrorists possibly slipping through. PEOPLE WAKE UP! You're likely to be killed by a fellow citizen any ole day then some "boogie man" Syrian!
let me go back to what i was saying, I thought it was legal to smoke in waffle house in mississippi where this incident happen, in mississippi where they have silver ash tray on the table in mississippi
Mississippi does generally have no smoking ban but can be up to proprietors and local governments to decide. Biloxi isn't one of those cities but the Biloxi Waffle House doesn't allow smoking as per the article in the OP.
Oh well just another statistic in the USA! And people are worried about a few terrorists possibly slipping through. PEOPLE WAKE UP! You're likely to be killed by a fellow citizen any ole day then some "boogie man" Syrian!
I would wager if you could control as a percentage of the population, the Syrians are probably more dangerous than the average person off the street.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is so wrong knowing the protocol to hunt in an area? Reminder, not all areas are open land for hunting.
