Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum10 Tips for gun control advocates.
Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:52 PM - Edit history (2)
#1 The gun show loophole, as you wish to define it, does not exist. Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Federal Firearms Licensees (a.k.a., gun dealers or FFLs) at a gun show must fill out their ATF Form 4473s and do their FBI background (NICS) checks just as if they were at their shops (or their homes for that matter). Only private sales do not have these restriction at gun shows, they also do not have them outside of gun shows.
#2 Internet gun sales are subject to the same regulations and background checks as purchases from a gun shop. If you purchase a gun online, it has to be shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer, and you must pass the same legal checks to pick it up.
#3 You are constantly mis-defining the word Regulated as it appears in the 2A. As used by the writers of the 2nd it is defined : "properly functioning , orderly, and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock." It has nothing to do with control, it just meant that the people should train with their weapons. You're trying to apply the word "regulation" as we use it now to "regulate" as the writers used it then. Words change, or have multiple meanings. The word "regulate" wasn't used as you are defining it until 1828. See: Websters Dictionary 1806 & 1828, & Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto. Of course, I guess its possible that when your physician advises you to maintain a well regulated colon, he thinks you should give control of your body functions to the fed.
#4 Claiming that the SCOTUS has misinterpreted the 2A for 200 years is not likely to undo the precedent they have set. (and it just makes you look silly)
#5 Be careful how you go about trying to undo the 2A, the same tyrannical tactics would eventually be used on the rest of the Bill of Rights.
#6 Privately owned "Assault Rifles" are not assault rifles and are not full-auto, they are the exact same as the average hunting rifle and fire 1 round per 1 pull of the trigger. There are much more dangerous guns. Focusing on the ones that "look scary" demonstrates that you know nothing about firearms and causes the average gun owner to ignore you. (on a side-note, that "high capacity" mag may hold 100 rounds; but the shooter would have to pull the trigger 100 times, with no jams, and have 100% accuracy 100 times for that to matter)
#7 Neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights ever granted citizens the right to own guns. It is NOT something granted to us by the government. It was a right that was presumed to exist. The BoR simply stated that the government could not infringe upon that independently existing right.
#8 The founders did not protect our right to keep and bear arms for the sake of hobbyists and hunters. Its primary function is as a check against the threat of tyranny. To which most gun control advocates will promptly call you a paranoid, red dawn, crazy. Though I see no threat of such a problem presently, to say that our government could never turn on its citizens points out that you are ignorant of human nature and world history. To the other half who will say "like you would have any chance against the U.S. military if the fed wanted to go dictator", well much the same was said about the Colonies chances against the British empire, and I don't know about you, but I will take a small chance of avoiding a police state over NO chance.
#9 There's a reason perfectly sane law abiding citizens enjoy going to the range. Guns are fun. No, seriously.
#10 The American public strongly support the 2nd Amendment. Even on DU support for gun rights is at 70%. To have any hope of accomplishing your goal of more regulation or gun bans you will have no choice but to convince the average gun owner to support it. Calling 2A advocates "gun nuts" "redneck" "baby killer" psychopath" etc is unlikely to aid you in this.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Oh, just to mention it, I'm a gun owner.
According to your definition of "regulated" we're failing. There's nothing neat and orderly about what's happening as a result of firearm proliferation in America.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)aprox 85 guns a day are fired resulting in a death. (That includes suicides, accidents, and murders) There are an estimated 230 million privately owned guns. So less than 0.5% are involved in a shooting death, and you think thats failing? I wish congress had such a high rate of "failure".
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That's over 31,000 gun deaths annually. "Orderly"? I think not.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)230 million guns. 31,000 gun deaths. Approx 2-3 million gun deaths in the U.S. since the year 1900. Less than 1% of gun owners will be involved in a shooting (justified or criminal). I still like those odds.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the number is closer to 11K.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)is that they will find another, perhaps more gruesome way to die, such as jumping in front of a train, jumping off of bridges in front of small children, mixing cleaning chemicals into a toxic gas cloud, endangering others living in their apartment building...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)hanging. That is also the most common way in Europe.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I've seen a few people drink themselves to death and another OD while depressed. Not pretty.
Chemically pollute themselves until their bodies quit.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)good point.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)How many of these 'toxic cloud' deaths actually occur in apartment buildings? Answer: Very, very, very few. Most that engage in this form of suicide just use their own cars and shoot for CO asphyxiation. Hardly the same as mixing chemicals of toxic clouds to threaten others. But I love reading absurd arguments following OP's calling on gun control advocates to stop using absurd arguments.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)YES, THAT IS FAILING, or do you consider it statistically insignificant? Keep your guns at home or at the range please. Not on the streets.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the ones firing the 85 a day (does that include suicides?) don't read DU. Come to think of it, I doubt they read American Rifleman either. High Times and Gang Management Quarterly on the other hand.......................................................
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)
Right Hand of Dog
(8 posts)I've never shot a single person and I carry. I do because there are people who break the laws on Murder and Assault all the time
And because chick's dig Glocks
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)But women prefer gentlemen with Walthers.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes I consider it statistically insignificant
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That makes you part of the problem. I'm sure it's all part of the fun for you. Enjoy your stay.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)so without guns, that would be an extra 55 self hanging incidents per day.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why wouldn't they stab themselves to death? I'm not doing that silly dance again.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because I have the facts on my side, including history. See Australia and Canada.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Comparing cultures is utterly pointless. I don't think suicide is a reason to restrict gun ownership, but to dismiss it as irrelevant to gun proliferation is disingenuous. It's just an unfortunate fact of life that gun suicides in the US have by far the highest success rate, regardless of all other factors. It ties in with the cultural obsession for instant gratification.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)people who choose guns and ropes are serious
those who choose means where there is a chance they can be saved, not so much. Many countries have higher suicide rates than the US. Japan and South Korea are not known for instant gratification. Either way, it is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Oh wait, we made cars safer, driving TESTS AND LICENSES harder to get, and REGISTRATION and insurance mandatory.
Too bad those little nuggets don't apply to gun ownership.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)we don't have that many gun accidents. We might have five deaths by accidents. Of those 85 a day, 59 are suicides and the rest are mostly gangs killing each other where there are LICENSES, REGISTRATION, BANS
so your point fails.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just clueless.
spin
(17,493 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)not idiots.
There's a difference.
Idiot by it's traditional definition cannot be fixed. Ignorance always can be.
And what would you call it when people continue to call every weapon used in a crime an automatic (false) assault rifle (false) and probably an AK-47 (false) and are completely unaware of why those statements are wrong? Or when they misrepresent gun facts saying SYG means you can kill anyone for any reason or the fully automatic weapons are readily available or that more guns leads to more gun crime?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)You forgot #11 - No Flamebait.
Take your lectures elsewhere.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It has a fair amount of good info in there to help the anti's avoid the side issues they regularly complain about being used in their threads.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)we offend our betters in other forums 
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Especially the ones that are posted with no commentary. Every one of those should be locked.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)The pro's would never do that.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Assault Rifles, Battle Rifles, and Sub-Machine Gun all have federal definitions and all of them are automatic firearms. You cannot have a semi-automatic Assault Rifle, period.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)It began production in 1936 & is a WWII battle rifle. It fires .30-06 which is the most common round for deer hunting, and its max capacity is 8 and is semi-auto. Apart from having a bayonet attachment, it doesn't differ from any contemporary hunting rifle.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)Especially when they negate one's hysterical flailing about before it even gets started.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)"
on a side-note, that "high capacity" mag may hold 100 rounds; but the shooter would have to pull the trigger 100 times, with no jams, and have 100% accuracy 100 times for that to matter) "
If you had to go into a gun fight armed with either the semi-auto M-1 Garand with its normal capacity 8 round en bloc clips or the semi-auto M-14 with its normal capacity 20 round detachable magazine, along with 80 rounds in spare mags or clips, which would you select and why?
Would you have a preference if you had to choose between a California legal AR-15 and a Michigan legal AR-15?
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)and in a fire fight I would choose a higher capacity mag for the obvious reasons. (though in a gun vs gun comparison, some are better than others regardless of capacity) I am more hoping to dispel the myth that because a magazine holds 100 rounds then you can pull the trigger once and fire 100 bullets.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)I'd be thrilled if I ever was able to own an M-1 Garand but I'd consider myself pretty much screwed if I ended up facing off against a bad guy armed with an AR-15 with a couple of fully loaded 30 round magazines even if I had the equivalent number of rounds in en bloc clips for my M-1 as he had rounds for his AR-15.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)was a refurb, and it was $1200. Don't think I'll be owning one any time soon. I believe in a static firing position the M-1 Garand does test as more accurate than the AR or the M14. Plus they last FOREVER, but they don't put many rounds down range, and are more difficult to maneuver
rl6214
(8,142 posts)I've picked up a few Garands for $300, they are running around $500-$600 now.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)just checked out the site, thanks for the info.
OHHH and this was on the ordering page: "The information you supply on your application will be submitted by the CMP to the FBI National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS) to verify you are not prohibited by Federal, State or Local law from acquiring or possessing a rifle. Your signature on the Purchaser Certification portion of the purchase application authorizes the CMP to initiate the NICS check and authorizes the FBI to inform CMP of the result."
Guess i wont be getting in on that hassle free ordering of guns on the internet. 
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)But that means I had to jump thru the hoop s to get it, you know background checks, fingerprinting, submitting info to the ATF and Local law enforcement. The kind of stuff the anti-gun zealots want everyone to do every time a gun is purchased.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)and who had the better optics and skills. I hope none of us ever are in a situation like that, regardless.
Mec9000
(51 posts)A Garand will turn there cover into concealment.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The odor of NRA Talking Points (AKA, Big Lies) is awful.
Smells exactly like bullshit.
armueller2001
(609 posts)you disagree with? Or are you just fulla shit?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I asked NRA acolytes to prove a bunch of stuff they made claims about over the last few days, and was mostly ignored.
Since that's what gun-relgionists like to do, I'll do the same to them.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I asked NRA acolytes to prove a bunch of stuff they made claims about over the last few days, and was mostly ignored.
Since that's what gun-relgionists like to do, I'll do the same to them.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)No
ErikO
(24 posts)What if those are the same points are made by someone that is a member of a group such as the Liberal Gun Club?
What further questions do you want answered?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> a group such as the Liberal Gun Club?
Interesting choice of words. Have you been tombstoned yet?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Does that offend you so much?
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)I will happily give you more information and sources.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)More than half of the NRA Talking Points you parroted are mere opinions. So now you're going to give me "more information and sources" - to do what? Are you going to "prove" some opinions?
GREAT STUFF! Boffo in fact!
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)The fact you don't agree doesn't automatically make the opposing view an "opinion".
bongbong
(5,436 posts)You're kidding, right? You can't tell opinions from facts?
NO one can be that dense.
Well, maybe if their brains are clouded by their gun-relgion...
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)lend credence to your own position.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> You haven't yet contributed anything to
Funny, that reminds me of gun-relgionists whose posts on DU consist entirely of debunked NRA Talking Points.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Considering you're so well versed on the subject, you should probably help out Hoyt in our discussion below. I look forward to hearing your insightful rebuttal.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)that with the 2nd Amendment having such strong support among the population, pushing gun control to the front of a progressive agenda is a fail for us. The number of people in 1 year effected by not having health insurance is 16 times larger than the number of gun deaths in the past 200 years.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> hat with the 2nd Amendment having such strong support among the population
Prove it.
Are you talking about the poll by repig Luntz that found most Americans wanted more gun control? The one where lots more than 50% of gun owners wanted more gun control laws? The one the NRA wouldn't comment on?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)Where is the poll?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)That poll talks about handguns, not the 2nd Amendment. I was expecting a poll on the 2nd Amendment from the way you stated your claim.
But I can dismiss that as just quibbling, since I have the Luntz repig-run poll showing more Americans & gun-owners want more gun control. So I guess that means gun-owners are more rational about gun control than the avg American.
ON EDIT: I see there is link to a poll that specifically asked about the 2nd Amendment. That can be interpreted as a poll on how well Americans can understand the Constitution, which, after the evisceration of the fourth, doesn't seem very good.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts) I bet you gun-relgionists hate that poll of gun owners done by the repig Luntz that said a majority were in favor of more gun control.
That's an "Inconvenient Fact".
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)with Brady Bunch substituted for NRA. It would be at least as rational as what you are posting.
Your definition of debunked must be interesting...since you never say how and by who.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Judging from your posts n this thread, you are the one having the difficulty.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)So you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts either?
Now I see where the gun-relgionist mentality comes from.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Are you laughing at yourself?
spin
(17,493 posts)Ten of which were made in the OP. To me those ten points were basically accurate and factual but I might be wrong. Convince me that you are right by using facts and statistics.
If your argument is solid you should have little problem. If it is weak I would suggest that you reconsider your viewpoint.
You made the charge:
The odor of NRA Talking Points (AKA, Big Lies) is awful.
Smells exactly like bullshit.
I will agree that much of the propaganda the NRA pushes is propaganda especially when they attempt to portray Obama as being a gun grabber. Overall he has been in favor of gun rights which is why he recieved an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign to
Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’
By Michael O’Brien - 01/19/10 07:00 AM ET
President Barack Obama on Monday received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for running away from gun control.
The group, which endorsed Obama in 2008, gave him an “F” on every issue it scored, including background checks, gun trafficking, guns in public, the federal assault weapons ban, standing up to the gun lobby and leadership.
“It’s been a very disappointing year for us, especially considering what he campaigned on,” the group’s president, Paul Helmke, said during an appearance on MSNBC.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f
> It is your job to disprove those claims.
I'll start with #9:
"#9 There's a reason perfectly sane law abiding citizens enjoy going to the range. Guns are fun. No, seriously. "
or maybe #4:
"#4 Claiming that the SCOTUS has misinterpreted the 2A for 200 years is not likely to undo the precedent they have set. (and it just makes you look silly) "
Just how should I disprove claims like those?
Did I ever tell you how much gun-relgionists make me laugh?
spin
(17,493 posts)
"#9 There's a reason perfectly sane law abiding citizens enjoy going to the range. Guns are fun. No, seriously. "
I enjoyed target shooting handguns for 30 years before I got my concealed weapons permit. It's an enjoyable hobby that is far more challenging then most people understand.
For a while I tried fishing as a hobby and my ex-wife made a comment. She said, "You enjoy shooting far more than you do fishing."
I thought about it and replied, "That's true. When I am fishing I simply sit and wait for a fish to bite. When I go shooting there's far more action."
I could point out that she also enjoyed shooting handguns as did our daughter. We used to journey to a pistol range once a week. I started reloading our own ammunition and tailoring the rounds to our individual handguns to produce the most accurate results. It's a difficult and challenging sport but fairly inexpensive once but you own the firearms and if you reload your ammo, it's far less expensive than golfing or buying a boat and motor to go fishing.
If you have never tried shooting I suggest you find an experienced shooting to introduce you to the sport. You might be very surprised just how much fun it really is.
I've taken a number of people to the range to try shooting and they all enjoyed the experience. Most took their targets home to impress their friends. Some became regular shooters.
As far as number 4 you would have to do some research on the founding fathers and their mindset.
"#4 Claiming that the SCOTUS has misinterpreted the 2A for 200 years is not likely to undo the precedent they have set. (and it just makes you look silly) "
It would require that you take in account that our nation had used firearms to overthrow what they considered (rightly or wrongly) a tyrannical dictatorship run by what they viewed as a foreign monarch and dictator. The American revolution overcame the strongest military in the world at that time and that could largely be attributed to civilian firearm ownership.
But the fact remains that the highest court in the land has ruled in favor of the right for civilians to own firearms. Therefore your opinion is largely irrelevant.
I could also point out that while the current Supreme Court has been basically conservative and has been for years, Roe V Wade hasn't been overturned. A future far more liberal court is not likely to rule that civilians should have no right to own any firearm beyond black powder muskets and single shot rifles as were common in those days.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)If its all bullshit, what does that make your position since it ignored by most Democratic and Republican lawmakers -- even by President Obama.
You're person nongrata at the policy table.
> You're person nongrata at the policy table.
Oh, shit, and I was waiting for my invite!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)then the most likely cause is due to one's cranium being stuck in one's rectum.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Only on posts from gun-religonists regurgitating NRA Talking Points or Talking Point variants.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)is DOWN.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)My favorite book. You know theyre making a movie? Hope it doesnt suck.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)I hope the movie doesn't make me cry because it is so bad.
The best parts of that book occur inside Ender, I fear this won't translate to film so well; so I hope for, but don't expect, much.
It's a book that really speaks to me, I was a gentle young boy with a genius IQ, living with someone that everybody involved now recognizes is probably a sociopath.
Card either lived it, knew someone who lived it, or did a hell of a job with research...
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)not sure how his inner dialogue, his confliction about his task, or his relationships with Peter & Valentine will translate to film. You are 100% correct "The best parts of that book occur inside Ender"
auburngrad82
(5,029 posts)Ender Wiggin. One of Orson Scott Card's more famous characters. While some of Card's books are not bad, his politics doesn't exactly jibe with DU. Didn't Card say he was supporting Gingrich earlier this year? And in 2008 didn't he support McCain over Obama?
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)I also liked L Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth, but I am not a follower of Scientology. Does reading an authors works of fiction really equate to agreeing with their personal views?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)For the sake of our souls and credibility on DU (one in the same, correct?), please help us make the right choices comrade commissar!
electedface
(16 posts)While I believe it is our given right to own a firearm, I don't think our founding fathers necessarily intended on us having semi-automatic rifles when they wrote the Declaration. I do think that stricter regulations are necessary, mainly in the online gun sale department.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Given the intent of the 2nd amendment, should we start reissuing muskets to the military?
Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)You can NOT just order a gun off the internet. The video is lying.
It has to be sent to your local FFL where you have to fill out a form 4473 and undergo a background check.
I dislike seeing ignorant shit posted.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)it's amazing that people will believe whatever is on the internet with no verification of whether it is true or not.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Are you confused, ignorant or pushing an agenda?
Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)I enjoy shooting and own weapons which would scare most here to tears.
I like my MGs and SMGs.
But I don't think any post here will ever change anyone's mind.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)and many people love to argue on this forum over a large number of issues.
I used to post on more conservative boards in support of gun rights. Everybody agreed with me. It was not challenging. Unfortunately such forums usually contain comments that I find offensive as I am a Democrat and they are largely Republican.
One day I discovered DU and the Gungeon. I knew that posting on a very liberal and progressive forum in support of gun rights would be very challenging. I encountered a lot of very intelligent posters who had good arguments to support their views. I carefully considered their viewpoint and I had to do a lot of research to support my position. There are good points to be made on both sides of this issue. In my opinion the factual side of the debate is won by the side that supports the Second Amendment. The strongest arguments for the strong gun control side are largely emotional. There is absolutely no doubt that allowing citizens to own firearms can lead to tragedies. It is also true that civilian firearm ownership can save lives.
It's been fun and I have learned a lot. Another plus is that I can post on other forums and groups in DU and I don't feel like I need to take a shower afterward as I did when I read the posts on the more conservative forums.
Response to xxenderwigginxx (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
spin
(17,493 posts)in which you learn through experience and sometimes change your views.
It is wise to consider the opinions of those who disagree with you and reevaluate your views if necessary.
The ten tips in the OP do indeed point out important weaknesses in the arguments for the side that wishes to impose extremely strong gun control. As such they are worthy of consideration.
If your opponent is foolish enough to give you advice, it is a good idea to evaluate it for its merits. It may make your argument stronger and may prevent your looking like a fool to the other side.
Response to spin (Reply #117)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)This just in...gun control advocates "don't f&@#$*% like guns" More on this as it develops.
In other news... A 6' 2" bag of douche has been spotted near Poland. Government claims its swamp gas.
spin
(17,493 posts)and those people who enjoy the hobbies of target shooting or hunting.
Possibly you have either watched too many violent movies or simply believe the anti-gun owner editorials in the newspaper or the talking heads on TV.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Personally, I'm not overly concerned about internet sales. Although, I'm sure some folks use fake IDs, etc., to acquire guns.
Most of the other 10 "Tips" are BS on par with birther crud.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Care to back it up?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I've got a little time to kill.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)#3 was cited in the post
#4 Google the 1934 National Firearms Act and the discussion they had
#5 Look at the Declaration of Independence for the intent in regards to the intent of the 2nd amendment
#6 Also a simple google search will confirm
#7 Again look at the Declaration of Independence “"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."”
#8 Same as #5
#9 Boarders on opinion since it can’t be proven other than that most gun owners don’t hunt, just target shoot, and aren’t mass murders
#10 Well here’s a handy link http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That seems to be a common thread in your answers. Let's start with that. And, please don't give us some Palinesque spin on the Declaration.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
2nd amendement
"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."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Some of you guys are just too full of this right wing gun junk.
If you think you need guns to fight the government, you can leave them at home until the revolution comes.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)Not because I think I may need it, I just like to snuggle and whisper things to it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)You're trying to dodge the issue because you got called on it. CCW is NOT a constitutional right which is why it's not permitted everywhere and requires a license to exercise that privilege. That is a separate discussion, I'm sure you knew that though.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)keeping arms to shoot fellow citizens.
You aren't really serious?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)The intent of the 2nd amendment is to keep the citizens armed as a check to possible tyranny. I'm backed up by other court cases such as the Miller decision by the Supreme Court that put short barreled shotguns under the NFA because they had no "military" purpose. Which is crap but Miller died before the decision and his lawyer never showed up so the government's side went unopposed. Here's a quote, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." History of gun rights in this country didn't start when you started following the issue, they've been going on a loooonnngggg time.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I agree with you, the 2nd Amendment is not about people walking around in public with guns; folks stocking arming up to shoot their fellow citizens; etc.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Does it say how people should be armed? The intent would be to fight the military if it should be employed to tyrannical ends, that requires a bit more than 100 rounds and a bolt action rifle. The fact that those arms are misused is no different than the misuse of our other rights by criminals. Doesn't mean we abandon the entire bill of rights.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> The intent would be to fight the military if it should be employed to tyrannical ends,
That, of course, is just your opinion.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Read the entire discussion before you post please
bongbong
(5,436 posts)So you gun-relgionists are going to fight the mighty US Army with your pea shooters?
Oh, the laughs never end with the gun-relgionists!
Maybe it's time to tell your NRA Overlords that you want them to start lobbying for allowing you guys to carry nukes.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts) bongbong
(5,436 posts)I don't get those "Talking Point Of The Day" blast-faxes from the NRA. Pardon me for not being on the same wavelength as gun-relgionists.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)his whole goal is to piss people off enough to get them banned. Either that or he is a 14 year old who has been drinking too much bong water.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> his whole goal is to piss people off enough to get them banned.
No, I'm here to get gun-religionists to show their latent paranoia in public.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> I'm starting to think you really don't have anything to add to the discussion nt
Reminds me of gun-relgionists posting lists of NRA Talking Points and variants of NRA Talking Points.
We've heard them all before, and repeating them over & over doesn't make them true.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)just a lot of to go along with his/her bongpinion
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Same thing happened to Hoyt, don't feel bad.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Oh, sorry, tell me how you're going to beat the US Army with your peashooters.
I'm all ears.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)You're moving the goal posts from the intention to how effective it will be. Did you not take rhetoric in school?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Not moving the goal posts since I acknowledged that what I thought was your opinion about the intent of the 2nd Amendment was just your contention, not you trying to state a fact.
Did you ever stop to understand the rhetoric thing that you're talking about?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)All you've done is post snark that makes little sense
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I traced this sub-thread all the way back to #55, and no, you only backed up one thing (the poll). Everything else from you is more opinions and Talking Points.
You know, DU3 makes it easy to check these kind of things out. Maybe gun-relgionists can learn about these spiffy features!
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I've cited court cases, founding documents, quotes from the founders and relevant discussions that took place at the time. Other than a time machine what do you require?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)That section on militias refers primarily to the founders distrust of organized standing armies. It was the original intent to not have a standing army but rather to have the military exist as 'citizen soldiers' who would retire to whatever other occupation they held when they were not needed.
The modern militia movement has absolutely nothing in common with the 18th century concept of a militia and very little to do with the way a militia functioned at the time period.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> The intent of the 2nd amendment is to keep the citizens armed as a check to possible tyranny
WOW! You state that SO absolutely. Which one of the Founding Fathers are you? Can I get your autograph?
(Note to Hoyt: sorry if I briefly hijack your sub-thread, but all you need to do to see the futility of discussing guns with gun-relgionists is to just stop and look at how many unproven absolute statements they make, and how ridiculous it sounds ... there's like 3 more in this post)
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)Interesting list of quotes.
I couldn't seem to find the one that starts with "The intent of the 2nd Amendment is....", however. Could you point it out to me?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Still can't find the 2nd Amendment mentioned.
But keep looking!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)If you do a little googling you'll find scads more
bongbong
(5,436 posts)What? I'll find more autographs of gun-relgionists who talk as if they're one of the Founding Fathers?
Are you gun-relgionoists posting your versions of NRA Talking Points so fast that you're losing track?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)It's another kind of funny when gun-relgionists lose track of the post they're responding to and their reply turns into logical gibberish.
Gun-relgionists are what we call "funny on so many levels".
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)Pro-control will argue what the FF thoughts on arms were and you cite their writings on the subject.
That is not good enough though because they do not specially mention the 2A.
A cursory examination shows most of these writings pre-date the BoR and even the Constitution.
We are to somehow believe they radically changed their views when they wrote the BoR; it is up to us to prove their point since they dismiss any contrary evidence in favor of nonexistent evidence.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)leads me to believe that his answer will not matter to you.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)is birther crud? please be serious here.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Dealers can't. But others do.
The gun culture doesn't want it called a "loophole," so let's don't call it that. But let's do acknowledge that guns get sold at gun shows without a background check -- both inside and outside. That needs to change.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that only 0.8% of prosecuted violent offenders acquired firearms used in their crimes "At a gun show," with repeat offenders less likely than first-time offenders to acquire firearms from a retail source, gun show or flea market. I don't think the debate is whether or not it happens, it clearly does, but is it prevalent enough to need legislation that would effect millions of legal gun buyers, and probably have little or no effect on gun crime?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)with guns that aren't classified as violent crimes, or are never prosecuted. How about the proliferation of more guns that we'll have to deal with down the road? How about some 3 year old shooting himself in the head with daddy's gun?
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)to buy guns at gun shows that they would then have an epiphany and become model citizens. I will check and make sure, but I believe that if a gun is displayed in the commission of a crime then it is classified as a violent crime. Even if the gun is not fired or even loaded. As for the rest, most states that I am aware of have existing legislation on the storage of firearms, but that primarily rests on personal responsibility, as it should. Having an accident free society will not happen, though we should take reasonable steps where we can. Personally, I don't want so much of my personal life or home being watched, manipulated, and governed by the next W that somehow gets elected.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)shut your own Ted Nugents up, see number ten.
JoeInNy
(20 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)This country wouldn't be a country without firearms. It took guns to gain our Independence from the tyrannous rule of England. It took guns to settle in this country from the beginning. It took guns to get settlers across the wilderness to the regions west of the east coast. So to anyone who says the 2a doesn't pertain to peoples rights to own guns, or that the founding fathers didn't intend this meaning. I say this.
1, Get your ass out to Alaska and homestead you a piece of land and stay there without a gun. I'm sure the bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions etc. will be looking forward to your arrival.
2. I can just see one of you going into a wild west saloon and talking this crap.
As for the Military thingy.
You got to be kidding! So England didn't have an army? Right....LOL
But they have tanks, machine guns, planes etc. Yea, the French Resistance was a total waste of time. It would've been best for them to give up their arms and get shot by the Germans at their whims. OK sure....
These people are so far from reality and what life truly is they have no clue.
Too many rights have disappeared because of these non realistic minority groups that enough is enough. They do not represent the Democratic Party as a whole. Not even the slightest. They only hurt the party.
When I go into a building owned by someone else, I must, as a descent person respect their rules regarding entry. I do not feel that it is an infringement of my rights, only a irrational person would. I don't have to go in or even be on the property that is of my choosing.
Security is the ONLY way to protect crowds from what happened in Aurora.
Let the B.S. fly.
jody
(26,624 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)hmm seems I feel that way about you.
jody
(26,624 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Very good!
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Maybe this is a clueless person? Maybe simply uneducated? Maybe young and unaware?
Somehow, I think arguments are wasted but xxenderwigginxx gets no sympathy from me.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)Dr Pepper. Im gonna plant a tree of whatever fruit that juice comes out of, and Im gonna eat it ALL the time.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)We need a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, with focus on the "well-regulated" part
Even if the SCOTUS has already made previous rulings on the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to say that a future SCOTUS couldn't revisit the issue. This is why it's important that we have Presidents who can appoint progressive justices, those who understand that today's society is much different than it was 200+ years ago. The 2nd Amendment clearly includes a "well-regulated" clause. We might not be able to do away with gun ownership completely - but we sure as hell should be able to regulate it tightly. There is something seriously wrong with a country where it's easier to obtain firearms than it is health coverage.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Out there. The price of a firearm isn't cheap. Especially the assault ones. So you're saying that if we had Medicare for everyone then the gun situation would be ok?
Unbelievable!
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)makes as much sense and has as much relevance to the conversation as what "sancho" said.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I'll go along with that.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)whatever the motivation, you can't be helped at this point. Welcome to DU. If you are still around 5 years from now I'll be truly surprised. Maybe you'll learn something. I don't have high hopes at this point, but miracles sometimes occur.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Especially for someone with a bunch of ad hominems.
How nice if you to be so welcoming to new members.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Seriously.
I am seeing straw-man, ad absurdem, gross exaggeration, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the position of the bill of rights with regard to the constitution proper. (Which actually defines the term 'militia' by the way).
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)Support your statements, it is not sufficient just to put them out there.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The last sentence of #10 qualifies as flamebait- as it is attempting to provoke a response by excessive nonsense. Also it counts easily as a strawman as it puts words in the mouths of those that have a different opinion about firearm regulation. i.e. rather than dealing with the arguments made by proponets of regulation it characterizes the argumers by pulling only the most general and aggresive commentary. It also counts as ad hominem as it substitutes opinions for factual argumentation.
Oh, and that was just the last sentence of the last paragraph. Need I go on?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)"#10 The American public strongly support the 2nd Amendment. Even on DU support for gun rights is at 70%. To have any hope of accomplishing your goal of more regulation or gun bans you will have no choice but to convince the average gun owner to support it. Calling 2A advocates "gun nuts" "redneck" "baby killer" psychopath" etc is unlikely to aid you in this."
It seems just from this thread you could easily add "Gun Religiulous" (or whatever)and "NRA talking points dispenser" and probably more and you made no actual counter argument that such insults are likely to attract gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters to the prohibitionist cause.
I find the last sentence to be an odd peg to hang your hat on when what is described is obviously operative.
Asking the poster to support the claim that the American public strongly supports the 2nd Amendment would seem to be the strongest point of attack to me. I think multiple polls (though unscientific) support (though cannot prove) the assertion about the support level on DU.
I would say considering the size of the electorate and the amount of gun owners all across the political spectrum that the cross over is significant enough that it probably would require some significant support among gun owners to make headway on a prohibitionist agenda, particularly lasting change in the culture.
The charge of flamebait indicates more to me that you want to flame and be inflamed. There is nothing there that is provocative beyond the average person's ability to exercise moderation in response.
The OP is not required to be "fair and balanced" to prohibitionist arguments, prohibitionists sure as hell make no effort whatsoever to my reckoning to do any such thing. Most like wild eyed one line "zingers" and deflecting any and all points and arguments made, particularly on actual functional details, policy outcomes, and really any favorable to the RKBA as "NRA talking points" as a "get out of jail free" card when they do not wish to honestly engage.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I skimmed your argument and found so many problems that I decided to skip to go wit the last part that I read.
Tell me how, by constructing an argument based on the least articulate elements of a discussion by your opposition and creating a generalization POV to bash, that you might not be creating a Straw man.
Answer that in a paragraph or fail basic english comp.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)to gun control advocates that I believe to be true. For genuine gun control to become a reality, the average gun owner will have to be involved in its implementation. Many of the statements and arguments made by gun control advocates only serve to ostracize gun owners from your position. We (by which I mean people in general) commit this error in various situations. More is to be accomplished by effectively communicating ones position & bringing others into agreement, then by simply hurling insults at those who disagree with your position. (especially when your position is in the minority)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Creating a straw man. Very logical of you. Perhaps rather than posting broadsides against an entire message board you should stick to debating points individually on their own merit with rational support to back them up.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)to support the 2A. I am not a member. Which is as unprovable and irrelevant as the gun control advocates who say in their posts "and I own guns, but..."
villager
(26,001 posts)I guess. Their fear-mongering is certainly successful.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"OMG, they've got an ammunition hoard!"
"OMG, they've got large magazines!"
"OMG, they've got scary looking semi-automatic rifles!"
Save for the VPC/Brady Camapign, their politician allies, and certain members of the chattering classes, this sort of thing isn't generally catching on.
The NRA and its opponents are mirror images of each other, except that good, bad, or indifferent the NRA is far more politically effective...
villager
(26,001 posts)Anything decent or empathic left at all?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but only it is celebrity-lobbying with fear mongering propaganda.
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)the fact that you disagree with someone doesn't make them a plant. I thought us gun nuts were supposed to be the paranoid ones.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Ya Basta
(391 posts)I agree with all ten points.
And pertaining to your #7 point. In the case of U.S. vs Cruikshank the Supreme Court states "The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
In other words the Supreme Court stated the right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is a natural right which existed prior to the constitution.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and now compare assaults regardless of weapon.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)that California had the highest number of gun murders that year, and yet scored 81 out of 100 on the Brady Campaign scorecard. To quote Brady "California holds the top spot with the nation’s strongest gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of guns without background checks and reduce risks to children"
[link:http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CA/|
[link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state|
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Spell check won't catch the misuse of words. You need a brain to use language.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)wear short sleeves?
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)to be a common default for people on DU who can offer no substantive contribution to the discussion.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)My substance is just as substantive as the substantial amount of regurgitation of nra talking points that takes place around here.
I am really quite alarmed at the rehashing old ground and re-spewing of the same old tired nra talking points in defense of firearms. As a gun owner I have a horse in this race. Frequently I am embarrassed and disappointed at the quality of discussion, misinterpretation and mangling of statistical data and defense of the abhorrent by the gun bunnies. But I do agree with you to some extent - not being able to use language properly is not the major issue.
But there is a problem. Refusal to acknowledge that and move the discussion forward is a delaying tactic known as stonewalling. The gun bunnies have taken to stonewalling the discussion like a fish takes to water. Is that because there is no real defense except the 2A? Is it because they can't think for themselves? Is it because there is no real substance to their position beyond "me me me"? Is it the hypnotic power of parkerized steel and copper plating? Simple fear and hate? Curious minds want to know.
Until there is some real discussion, and an acknowledgement that the people of this country are giving their lives so that gun bunnies can have easy access, the grammar police will continue to do their job.
Thanks for your participation.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)then all their distortions of the 2nd Amendment and whining about prying their guns from their cold dead hands will be for naught.
The polls that gun lovers pound on line, especially on DU, mean nothing. I give it about ten years and the tide will start knocking these pushy sabre rattlers back on their heels.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)percent of the US vs a couple thousand rich people.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)There will be a lot less paranoid white men frightened of their own shadows. That's one thing the NRA can't stop. People of color who are now being used as target practice (especially where SYG makes it virtually legal) are going to get tired of this bullshit.
As the population gets less white and rural the balance will tip and then it will only be a struggle with the last small percentage of fanatics like the ones that spend their days collecting guns and defending them constantly on the internet. Most people will go with the flow and be happy to see the end of it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the first being that group being mostly "paranoid white men" that percentage includes many people of color. I'm guessing you have never been in rural areas in the south and southwest. Your knowledge of self defense law are nonexistant other than propaganda you might have heard on talk radio. SYG has been the direction US self defense law has been moving since the Progressive Era. It is precedent under federal law since the 1920s.
Your second paragraph is bigoted nonsense. Truth is no one likes being scapegoated for problems they don't contribute to. It doesn't matter if you are a Hispanic deer hunter in Texas, an African American target shooter in Detroit, or some white guy who moved to Florida from New York (which is half the population)
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. - Patrick Henry
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)are racist, rural, paranoid white men is the sort of blanket stereotype that progressives should despise. It is foolish at best, & bigoted nonsense at worst. As I am writing this, this thread currently has 212 replies. The responses made by GC advocates in this thread (in my humble opinion) have ranged from intellectual laziness to grotesque hatred. No evidences are offered, no historical data, crime statistics, court rulings, population samples, or even displaying a factual knowledge of the guns that you so desperately want to "liberate" us from. Nothing has been put forward to substantiate your own position but strings of emotional question-begging epithet. Now, (despite the courage of your convictions, and the lives at stake of course) you have decided that you need only sit by and wait until the gun owners die off and are gloriously replaced by their more refined and sophisticated counterparts. I will not only state that I believe you are mistaken, I will also freely express my hope that you are. If the purist among GC advocates ever get what they want, I fear they will find it a hollow victory in an America soon deceased. A sentiment which I am sure that you will not understand.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)the rest of the folks who just can't evolve. It's OK! Plenty of game to shoot at as well as each other. Eventually the world will simply pass you by.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)do you eat meat? Is humanly killing your own food less evolved than buying one that someone else killed, often under far less humane if not barbaric conditions? Tell you what, go to a factory farm or slaughterhouse and tell me who is more "evolved". The people who "shoot each other" are mostly gangsters killing other gangsters, along with too many innocents in the process, working to fill Bill Mauher's beloved bong.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Your minimum training requirements to buy guns are a joke. *Never* try to imply that as a group you guys have gained any particular knowledge from the process cause I just joined your ranks. Yup, as a joke perpetrated on the liberal by a couple of right wing "2A advocate" buddies, I can now buy handguns and rifles in my home state. And the process leaves me with nothing but scorn because it took exactly a single hour of effort -- travel time to and from a local cop shop included. And that hour was completely intellectually devoid. Kind of like hours two and three (and four and dear god really? five? don't you guys get bored?) on the range were.... I do kind of like tweaking the scopes but honestly shoot/reload, shoot/reload, shoot/reload replace the target gets old fast. And amusingly I performed as good as my supposedly infinitely more practiced buddies when they wanted to compete. They were quite disappointed at that cause of course liberals can't shoot. But let's face it, inherent hand-eye coordination is something you got or you don't and it takes a LOT of practice to make up for lacking that. I also think they also were going to make jokes about me not knowing what to do, but 10 minutes with the Google and the basic mechanical operation of a gun is pretty simple. Ooooh the mad skillz I now possess...
Anyway, your training requirements are a complete and pathetic joke.
1) Gun safety training was less rigorous than my mandatory email training at work. Half the time requirement, no comprehension quiz. Pathetic, minimalistic check the box crap obviously arranged that way cause you bunch of whiners wouldn't probably shut up about it if you actually faced a situation where you could FAIL, now right? What. A. Crock.
2) Those "reams of forms" you need to fill out that sound so onerous? Yeah, got them. Less pages to fill in than the insurance and background forms for my recent SINGLE doctor's appointment. By a factor of two so it isn't even really close. Also, unlike the doctor's form I only had to look a single time at a supporting document for a number. Once again, I figure they had to tone down on the level of the stuff or they'd probably get several banker boxes of NRA form letters full of pathetic snivelling every day. Per office, of course. One thing about you guys, you can cut and paste with the best of them!
3) And then for a background check that takes on order of a single work week when I'm busy anyway. Ooooooo, what government oppression!
So let's recap: all the onerous government regulation you guys whine about and it took me like 60 minutes to complete it all and frankly I don't think I'm *that* much smarter than you. You guys make it sound like it's cleaning the flipping Aegean stables or something! Sorry, not by a long shot. If anything it is deliberately shoddy and I think it's because the regulators have been cowed by 40 years of your pissing and moaning. That needs to change!
Anyway, now I've decided to look into CCW classes too just so I can advance to the upper educational echelons of your little culture. Found one place that claims a single day is all it takes for the training. One class in a neighboring state claims to get that down to four hours "to meet the minimum requirements." And let's face it, the training is the only obstacle because I'm apparently REALLY good at your forms and my record is squeeky clean, yessir! So, after all that bragging by some about how CCW holders as a group have more training and discipline than many cops I can complete the training in a single day of effort? Really? Oh I can't wait for the endless line up of future "but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night" jokes I am going to make once I got that little bit of paper too...
So. You're right. Grabbing guns is a bad thing. Of course, I have yet to see anyone actually seriously propose it but I figure you see it as a required starting position in a negotiation to "prevent the slippery slope" and all that. But I think training should have a minimum 80 hour supervised requirement including hands-on practicum before a person is allowed to even buy a 22 in Walmart. Including a RIGOROUS test at the end about safety AND law. Chapter and verse kind of stuff with trick situational questions drawn from 40 years of real world examples. Really mean assed trivia so you HAVE to know your shit and if you fail you don't get to try again for three months. Kind of like a driver's license which come to think of it took longer to prepare for as well. And I had to actually study for THAT...
xxenderwigginxx
(146 posts)minimum training requirements? & why do you keep referring to it as "your minimum training requirements" ? I'm not sure what you are responding to.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)My state has been described as "one of the most restrictive regimes in America" on handgun possession by John Lott. Despite that case of the vapors, it took a SINGLE hour of effort and a pathetically small waiting period for me to buy a handgun. Oooooooh, just smell that oppression!
I'll make the comparison again because you guys constantly love to detail the process that MUST be followed to buy a gun in excruciating detail (down to form numbers). In fact, that was the major theme of your tips 1 and 2 in the OP for example. Having lived through it now, I will forevermore be substantially unimpressed by that talking point -- sometimes the best bullshit makes the detail look formidable I suppose. Look Trixie, the forms were TWICE as long for me to get a recent medical specialists' appointment and I waited THREE TIMES the waiting period. So stop snivelling about how much of a burden you face.
So back to my tip. And I give this tip as "one of you" now, since I am a certified gun-owning member of the club, no matter how whimsically I became one.
1) Stop pretending that there is any rigor whatsoever applied to the purchase of a handgun. I have been through the process and found it startlingly convenient compared to just about every other modern administrative process I have ever been through. If anything, it begs for a greatly enhanced training and testing program that requires a demonstration of both dedication and minimum competency.
