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're giving up the 2nd amendment. "...shall not be infringed" in modern English means "shall not be infringed". A mandated class (which you also need to pay for...) is an infringement.
The 2nd. amendment means whatever the SCOTUS say's it means. That's the way our system of government was set up and that's the way it currently works. The SCOTUS has already stated with the Heller decision that "Reasonable restrictions are..... well.....reasonable." If we as responsible gun owners don't come up with reasonable solutions to tamp down society's paranoia, then anti gunners will do it for us.
I own multiple BATFE Tax Stamped firearms and have for 40 years before there was such a thing. I'm politically active in 2nd amendment organizations in the state of Arizona and I'm getting sick of the 2nd. amendment absolutes who refuse to see the forest from the trees and can be our own worst enemies with the continued parroting of the same mantras. Being involved with local gun owners and local politicians we have regular meetings with our local pols and we've acomplished alot in Arizona in pushing back and repealing many restrictive gun laws. Periodicly we will get a new attendee who will get up and soapbox endlessly on the absolute meaning of the 2nd and ask us to lobby for repeal of any restrictions on any person for any reason of any age, past history included, to own any firearm they choose. Consensus is that these firebrands do more damage and are responsible for giving fuel to the antis than any anti gun advocate could ever do.
I've been thinking about this, I've got a great idea.
Anyone who wants a gun can get one, all they have to do is provide a mental health eval within the past 5 years.
so you are suggesting that the prospective gun owner is guilty until proven innocent? or in this case insane until proven sane? why should i as a US citizen have to go through a mental health evaluation every five years when there is no need for it?
Quote:
All guns must be registered and one round must be fired to go into a national database for purposes of matching.
do you realize how easy it would be to replace the barrel and firing pin? and even the shell extractors are easily replaced, thus making the initial test round moot.
Quote:
All selling of guns requires filing of paperwork within 3 days stating seller and buyer with the ATF. If a gun is stolen, you have 24 hours to report it.
when selling a firearm, you have to do the paperwork straight away to be a legal sale anyway, so the first part of this suggestion is also moot. as for the second, what happens if a person is on vacation, and their home is broken into and their guns stolen, but they wont be back for two more weeks? how do you report a crime with in 24 hours if you dont find out about it for two or more weeks? this part is a stupid suggestion.
Quote:
If guns are confiscated in crimes, they are tracked to last known holder, that holder is charged.
and what happens if the gun is stolen while on vacation, and then used in a crime, but again you wont be home for two weeks? are you still charged with a crime?
Quote:
This does not interfere with second amendment rights at all. The only delay is making sure someone has the decision making capacity to carry something that can end another persons life quite easily. This only ensures responsibility of those who want to have firearms. Doesn't it???
all your suggestions unfairly restrict gun ownership, and thus are all unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
The idea is the bad guys get guns from irresponsible good guys. make the good guys be more responsible, and the bad guys can't get guns. Not that hard.
Think about it, its similar to punishing those that hire illegals, if you eliminate the opportunity, the illegals will stop. Can't we do the same with guns????
while there are a few gun dealers that sell firearms illegally to those that are not allowed to own firearms, they are usually rounded up and their FFLs taken away, and sometimes put in jail as a result. however most criminals get their guns on the black market rather than through legal channels. in the end you cannot prevent criminals from getting guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
You can't play the what if game.
What if she had it, fired and missed and killed someone else??? She'd still live in regret and she'd be responsible for someone elses death.
actually no she wouldnt have been considered responsible for anothers death. the law in most states says that the person or persons committing the initial crime is/are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that criminal action. for instance, if you and a friend of yours rob a bank,and you are killed during the robbery, regardless of who killed you, your friend would in fact be charged with your murder since it was a result of the initial criminal action.
Quote:
What if after getting concealed weapons permitted someone gets in her purse when its unattended and uses her gun to kill someone???
how many women do you know leave their purses unattended?
Quote:
Personally, in her little story, while she's running her mouth, I'd hire an aide to steal something out of her purse, just to make a point, that a concealed weapon is a false security blanket and a risk for those around you.
at which point anything that happens as a result of the initial crime, you would be the one charged with not only what crimes were committed, but also conspiracy to commit those crimes. god choice, how many laws would you like to break today?
Quote:
I'm willing to allow concealed weapons, but I want them all registered, and punishment for owners of guns in crimes. if you want the right, you need to be responsible enough to have it.
registration of firearms is not legal to begin with, second if a ccw permit holder commits a crime with their weapon, they lose the permit, the right to own a firearm, and spend time in jail, so they are already responsible. in fact if you want a ccw permit, you HAVE to go through a gun safety course, and qualify on the gun range.
Quote:
Would you allow a blind man to drive?? Do you want someone driving who is unable to react if a kid runs out in the street???? Why do people think gun owners shouldn't have to demonstrate some responsibility??
gun owners DO have to demonstrate responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
All registration does is end up as confiscation Hitler and Stalin proved that.
true that.
Quote:
The Tucson shooter lied on the form Mo Gal mentioned, and commited a felony. I doubt he will spend one day in jail, and will spend the rest of his life in a drugged out coma in a tax paid medical institution, unless he gets a medical release which he well might.
dont count on that. first off he faces several federal charges, including two counts of murder of a federal employee, and three counts of attempted murder of a federal employee, among several other charges. then he has to face state court with 6 counts of murder and 14 counts of attempted murder, among several other charges. and the murder charges are all first degree charges since he planned the shooting. and as i recall arizona has a guilty but insane verdict, so even if he is able to plead insanity, and can prove it, he can still be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in a mental institution. there wont be any of this, he is sane now and no longer a danger to society crap.
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
What rights am I giving up by having manditory education classes involved with gun ownership? You take the class one time when you purchase your first gun and then you're set. Show your card when you purchase another gun. This would difuse the anti-gunners from their meaningless restrictive laws. I can't believe that 2nd amendment advocates would be against educating gun owners with formal classes on safety, responsibility and the legal ramifications of shooting someone. Especially if they controlled the process, which they can if they step up to the plate and offer it as an alternative to more restrictions on guns and gun equipment.
what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand? everything you suggested here is in fact an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
The 2nd. amendment means whatever the SCOTUS say's it means. That's the way our system of government was set up and that's the way it currently works. The SCOTUS has already stated with the Heller decision that "Reasonable restrictions are..... well.....reasonable." If we as responsible gun owners don't come up with reasonable solutions to tamp down society's paranoia, then anti gunners will do it for us.
in my opinion, a reasonable restriction on firearms ownership is;
if you have a criminal record, and your rights have NOT been restored through the courts, then you cannot own a firearm.
if you have been committed to a mental institution, or are under the direct care of a mental health professional, you cannot own a firearm.
if you are under 18 years of age, you cannot own a firearm.
CA4Now, with that line of thnking you may as well just stay in sunny Cal...
I will; thanks. I was hoping, by reading this thread, to gain some insight into why carrying a gun is so important to some people---but I still don't understand it.
Took my fiancee to the range for her orientation course and met up with a local friend who stood in line waiting to punch his time card for shooting. The line has never been this long EVER, even after Obama just became president. Orientation had a huge and diverse mix of people. Young, old, black, asian, hispanic. Coupled with the super long line at the gun show this weekend, something is definitely up.
Im not buying it OP. first you make some very angry statements, then sober up an all I read is you repeating alot of what has been said by others. America was not violent when they wrote the constitution? You dont know history, nor do you really understand all the rights we have. You are the kind that think the 2nd needs to change with the times. I cant trust anybody that is so inconsistant just because he has a bad meeting with a friend. As for the rest of you; why do you continue to debate about whats "reasonable" for a LEGALLY owned gun? Its the flippin criminals that dont care about ANY law. Go take away there guns FIRST. Repeat that till it sinks in your thick skulls. How many laws did that puke break when he went on a shooting rampage in AZ.? Yet you think more "reasonable" restrictions on me will help. I dont need anymore restrictions. MY guns are secured when not on me. I am as trained as any police or atf agent. I refuse to support any more restrictive hoops for me and others to jump thru to own a gun.
I will; thanks. I was hoping, by reading this thread, to gain some insight into why carrying a gun is so important to some people---but I still don't understand it.
It takes a mindest of personal responsibility for one's own safety and the lives of their loved ones to understand. It takes an acknowledgement that the police have no duty to protect but only to attempt to enforce the law after it has been broken. That when violent crime occurs rarely is there a policeman beside you to react instantly to save your backside. That you and you alone are responsible for your own life and your own safety. Until you have the mindset you will not understand.
If you truly want to begin down that path of understanding I warn you that your life will change forever.
Follow the links with an open mind if that is your choice:
I've been thinking about this, I've got a great idea.
Anyone who wants a gun can get one, all they have to do is provide a mental health eval within the past 5 years. This protect the individual who has had his/her life threatened how? It does not, it makes them wait in some line for a mental health evaluation while the person threatening their life remains with the advantage.
All guns must be registered and one round must be fired to go into a national database for purposes of matching.
1) Firearms registration is the first step towards confiscation for every government that has used it.
2) Ballistics registries do not work. They are expensive and an abject failure. Research the cost to Canada for proof. I believe it was over $1 Billion and finally stopped for lack of ability to enforce. The "fingerprint" of a cartridge by any firearm is as easy as replacing a part. Manufacturers do keep a copy of one of two original test cartridges at the time of production, thus, this is also redundant.
All selling of guns requires filing of paperwork within 3 days stating seller and buyer with the ATF. If a gun is stolen, you have 24 hours to report it. Again, waiting periods for law abiding citizens favor the criminal. Not everyone knows within 24 hours if a firearm has been stolen. Ever go on vacation? Do you expect every firearm owner to check his/her inventory every day? How often are cars reported stolen within 24 hrs, every time?
If guns are confiscated in crimes, they are tracked to last known holder, that holder is charged. On what basis, just to charge them rather than seeking the true criminal?
This does not interfere with second amendment rights at all. Bullfeathers!The only delay is making sure someone has the decision making capacity to carry something that can end another persons life quite easily. This only ensures responsibility of those who want to have firearms. Doesn't it???
No, it insures no responsibility, only more "feel good" measures that punish law abiding citizens and give criminals the advantage. Your suggestions do nothing but impede the path to firearms ownership for the law abiding.
Edited to add:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." -- Jeff Snyder
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 01-17-2011 at 01:41 AM..
You know something that bothers me about whole "gun debate" by the left is the reason why it's even occuring. Yes, the Arizona shooting was tragic but it was one person, a complete loony bird, in this country of over 300 million. Why all of this knee jerk reaction over what one crazy individual did? Seems a bit like deflection is you ask me.
You know something that bothers me about whole "gun debate" by the left is the reason why it's even occuring. Yes, the Arizona shooting was tragic but it was one person, a complete loony bird, in this country of over 300 million. Why all of this knee jerk reaction over what one crazy individual did? Seems a bit like deflection is you ask me.
The left often uses isolated incidents to advance an agenda. Let me see........who said, "Never miss the opportunity of a crisis"?
The left is also adept at diversion of attention. The real issues in America are jobs (manufacturing in particular), energy, and the debt. The gun "crisis" is a great diversion when policy for our real problems has failed.
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.
don't ask, don't tell for firearms
