At least we have some sane people running our government.

would make all the laws in a NE state moot.

Just like driver's license reciprocity doesn't mean that a person with an NY license doesn't have to follow FL's traffic laws when in FL, this law wouldn't affect what's legal and what's not in the NE.

especially in NYC, and there were a couple of instances recently with people with out of state CCW. Most landmarks in NYC installed metal dectectors after 9/11. You are not allowed to carry at these places. One woman tried to and was arrested. Courts, DMV, and many office buildings installed metal detectors after 9/11. I can just imagine what is going to happen if this law goes into effect. I can see these people trying to fight the strict local laws, or at the very least, claiming ignorance.

Just like you can't use ignorance of NY's traffic laws when you drive there.

In those specific cases, I have to wonder if they were 'real' and not some kind of plant. I mean, c'mon, who doesn't know that NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the US?!?

"2nd amendment" mythology down the throats of every city and town in America.

any gun laws anywhere in the country. As Heller clearly showed, the current hyper-conservative, activist SCOTUS will not allow any local or state gun control to stand.

Makes an interesting read, if you have a couple hours to burn.

Have you not heard the name Paul LiarPage from Maine, T'Bagger and Koch brothers wet dream? Seriously though I am all for open carry, if your manhood is that much smaller than the others, and you have to resort to carrying then open carry is the only sane way. If you can see the threat you can sometimes avoid it. Sign me gun nut but reasonable LOL!

Check this out and the dumbass comments that follow.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/massachusetts_weighs_bill_to_e.html
I'm a Masshole and hate this. My brother is a paranoid conspiracy freak and has been trying to obtain firearm permit and so far he hasn't due to past domestic violence. I pray he never succeeds.

If so, it is a federal crime for him to possess one.

It is that important to face the truth.



Tikki

Some gun nuts are not criminals. Don't worry about them.

Seems Zimmerman was a criminal, tho. Had a record, and still had a gun. What will the nuts say 'bout that?

People who enjoy guns and hunting would never in a million years do something like this. My stepfather enjoys hunting and has a collection of guns and rifles. Yet he keeps those things under lock & key and makes sure they are not loaded.

You can be a gun enthusiast and recognize that 'Stand Your Ground' is just wrong. Gun Nuts live, breath and die by the gun. Probably men with super tiny dicks

absolutely.

You can spot them by the fervency they show every time they appear to defend the killing tool. They'll twist themselves into the most blatant logical overpasses, underpasses, cul-de-sacs and clover-leafs just to come to the rescue of their one true love.

I own firearms and I enjoy target practice. But I dread the prospect of ever possibly having to use one of my guns for anything other than target practice. There is nothing "exciting" or alluring about the prospect of having to take a life. For that reason my house has the "protected by ADT" signs everywhere, hopefully keeping any would-be criminals OUTSIDE.

What Zimmerman did is truly unconscionable on so many levels. In my view it's clear that he targeted Trayvon because of his race, and racism is of course despicable, stupid, and offensive. He also hunted the kid, arming himself to go play cop and then has the balls to say it was self defense. I've had military training and taken the CCW class. In neither of those training environments was I ever taught that provoking a situation could ever result in the provoker righteously "defending" him or herself. Most of us were taught by our fathers that if you start a fight you get what's coming to you, so don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash. This Zimmerman is the kind of guy who fancies himself a tough guy, but he packs a gun because he knows down deep he's not very brave or terribly tough, so the gun is the equalizer which allows him to pretend to be brave and not have to actually cash that check. He's a pathetic racist coward, and he deserves to be judged in a court of law for that and his crime.

he used a rifle, not a handgun.

Guess not...

I can't help you. Rambling about handgun hunting in a time like this is just beyond the pale

Are you kidding us? Did you forget the sarcasm thingee? I live in hunting territory and not one single person hunts with a handgun. Obviously, you have no idea what you are saying.

Hunting with handguns is quite popular.

While I am more of a rifleman hunter ('03 Springfield sporter chambered in the original .30-06), I see more and more of a generation of handgun hunters using the above calibers and more, usually while hunting deer and wild hogs in the blackwater Cyprus swamps and timberlands that run along the coastal plain of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. Just to have one, I purchased a used, but like new, brushed stainless steel .44 magnum Interarms Virginian Dragoon with 7 1/2" barrel. Even the old .44 mag bullet has a great velocity and carries a lot of kinetic energy at 75 yards or more -- which is about as far as one can see down here. Of course, good shot placement is essential with any weapon. I haven't hunted in a number of years, but my 13 year old -- who is an avid range and competition shooter is about to end my down time from hunting . I might have to give the .44 Virginian Dragoon a try.

If you wish, take a little while to read this article.

Field & Stream Picks the 25 Best Handguns for Hunters
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting-gear/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made

holy shit!

lol

Um....yay?

Don't bother to reply . . .

This is just a drive-by

Bye-bye

Far be it from me to criticize someone's lifestyle!

People have guns and we don't know if they have the experience or training to handle these weapons.

You said it right.

It's obviously not as rigorous as the training the military or law enforcement receives, but it is more training than the average gun owner is required to have.

When I was younger I had a CCW. We had to show that we were at least proficient with the firearm we were licensed to conceal, firing from a multitude of stances and being required to achieve a minimum score in terms of shots on-target and also several written exams on the law and reasonable defense scenarios. I'm not suggesting it to be rigorous, all-inclusive training, but it does at least show proficiency with the gun.

I gave my CCW up because I realized I didn't need it. Actually I always felt more scared with it because I kept thinking "Oh God please don't put me in a situation where I need to use this thing." It didn't take tremendously long to figure out that I was putting myself in more jeopardy (at least mentally) by carrying it than without it. I've been without my CCW for 10 years now and I'm much more at peace than I ever was with it.

That said, there are people who are better served carrying a concealed weapon such as diamond brokers, undercover security agents, and people who live in dangerous areas. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of concealing a weapon if you're appropriately licensed to do so. As is always the case, the nutjobs who have no business near weapons - the Rambo types - are the ones who ruin it for the responsible folks. Zimmerman clearly did not possess the character to responsibly conceal a firearm (let alone own one), but he isn't the majority of gun owners or CCW holders.

I know the responsibility that goes along with carrying one. It was drilled into our heads during basic training. We have my dad's hunting rifle in the house and I absolutely do not want another gun in the house.

I hope you're right, but there are states where people are able to freely get handguns with little to no training. It disturbs me.

You're right that guns are far too available. We've all seen the exposes on TV about how easy it is to pick up a gun at a gun show. But don't confuse that with LEGALLY concealing a weapon: getting a CCW is a process in which an FBI background check is run (including fingerprinting), and in most states one must prove themselves to be at least reasonably proficient with the gun to be licensed to conceal it.

they still may have the gun. A family member who had successfully hidden his drinking problem had a legal gun in his home for "protection" against intruders but ended up using it to kill his step-granddaughter on an evening's drinking/anger binge .

because some day someone might get drunk and drive!!!

The solution to criminal problems isn't to take people's rights away. The solution is to punish criminals. Zimmerman needs to be punished because in no way was he acting within the rights afforded him by the 2nd Amendment. It says you can own a gun. It doesn't say you can own one and then go hunt a kid and kill him. So by taking away 2nd Amendment rights you're seeking to punish me for something this idiot did. That doesn't seem fair.

"right" to a gun?

Why don't you enumerate the ways that this kid's life could have been saved? Should HE have been carrying? (could he, at age 17?) After all, more people need to drive to live their daily lives than anyone needs a gun.

I thought I'd ask, since you seem to know a lot. I'm sure you have the answer for Travon's family who might be asking the same question I am asking.

What do you say to that family?

since I have nothing to do with their son's death. I didn't pull the trigger - nor would I have done so. You're attempting to make my gun ownership relevant to Trayvon Martin's death when the fact is I live thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime, so of course my gun ownership literally has nothing to do with it. I am not responsible for his death, thus I don't have to explain anything to his parents - although I would offer them my condolences for their loss.

At age 17 my best friend was murdered with a handgun. The killer was caught with an unregistered 9mm Glock. Your solution is to outlaw Glocks whereas mine is to punish the person who used it to kill someone. That's what we do in this country: Punish the guilty but not the innocent. And interestingly, my best friend's parents are avid gun owners/enthusiasts who say it would be ridiculous to strip gun owners of that right simply because some people misuse them.

It's just like cars: They can be used as get away vehicles, operated by drunks, and in extreme cases as battering rams intentionally wielded to kill someone else. Should we ban them too?

Or how about hammers? I've read stories where people have used hammers to kill others. My God, let's get the FBI to arrest everyone at Home Depot!!!

The sad reality of any society is that not everyone could have always been saved by some measure of law. For example drunken driving: It's already illegal, yet people are inexplicably still doing it. While it does have the effect of limiting the amount of deaths caused by drunken driving, it's still not 100% effective; simply making something illegal doesn't always mean you're safer. And in fact when criminals know that a given target is unarmed, I'd submit to you that your abolition of 2nd Amendment rights just made that household less safe. It's a balance, unfortunately: Sometimes it gives a killer an easy tool, but sometimes it helps a law abiding citizen protect themselves.

Trayvon Martin was a victim of a racist creep who abused his gun rights. He wasn't within his rights to do what he did, so banning everyone's rights to have them is the wrong answer to the problem. In my view psychological evaluations should be a part of the background screening process to own a firearm, but I'm realistic and admit that not even that would work 100% of the time. Yet banning guns altogether wouldn't suit that goal either because guns can be purchased on the black market, and given that most hard drugs are already illegal but still flooding into this country, I suggest to you that the cartels would simply step in to fill the demand in much the same way as bootleggers avoided prohibition.

Oh, have I ever heard this before, even including the hammers.

At some point, I would hope, our society will evolve. It hasn't yet, much to my sorrow.

Having said that, what is your solution again? You didn't address that? How do we get to prevention here with these gun related deaths?

If you advocate people carrying these guns, I think you have a responsibility to offer some solution to curtain the slaughter that has ensued from your advocacy position.

What happened to Trayvon Martin was horrific and, in my view, illegal. But neither I nor any responsible gun owner have any responsibility for the actions of others. I'm responsible for me, not George Zimmerman. That is something HE - not WE - did. I have never in any way, shape, or form contributed to gun violence because I have never murdered anyone, nor - outside of military service - have I ever used a gun in a violent way. I am not the problem. George Zimmerman - and anyone like him - is.

That you keep trying to put the responsibility on me - ME, of all people, someone thousands of miles away who wasn't even there nor even met any of the parties involved in the situation - just shows the flimsiness of your argument. I have no more responsibility to "curtail the slaughter" than General Motors has responsibility for drunk drivers. It's a silly argument.

The responsibility in this case and cases like it lies with the shooter.

In terms of prevention, I'm not sure there exists a universe in which all bad outcomes can be prevented. You can do background checks, I'd like to see mental/psychological evaluations as a part of that, but I'm not sure you ever arrive at a place in which nothing bad ever happens. The proof of that of course is evident in the many laws we have which are unfortunately violated routinely: things like drunk driving still occur, as do overdoses owing to both legal and illegal drugs, etc. That you seem to think we can ban our way out of the problem I think shows a rather naive understanding of both the problem and how human behavior works, for bans typically don't actually or fully ban the targeted problem. And at times they create other problems, witness the explosion of organized crime syndicates after prohibition as one of those unintended consequences. In this case I suspect you'd see an explosion of violent home invasion-style robberies if guns were outlawed, and I also suspect the drug cartels would diversify into gun running as one of their fields of endeavor.

By banning guns you cannot promise me any erosion in gun-related deaths because you simply can't show me how you'd get ALL of the guns off the street. You also cannot show me how my right to defend myself would sustain after I lose one of the best tools known to do that. Nor can you show me why I should pay the price for what some people do - none of those people being me. As such your ban is necessarily fraught with at least as many problems as it pretends to resolve.

The gun lobby will keep people buying them because "with a gun you can stand your ground."

I sure don't. I think as a human being you have a duty to retreat until you physically can't retreat any more and if you're still threatened with mortal danger then and only then may you use lethal force. That's my view. And I suspect it's a commonly held view amongst gun owners; I don't think a terribly high percentage buy guns to "stand their ground" but instead as tools with which to legitimately defend themselves.

I don't think we need fuckers carrying guns - particularly in populated areas.

If the revolution comes, people can carry them and shoot each other if that is what they want.

But there are too many guns being snapped up. And a lot of pro-gunners make money off the manufacturing, sales, and trafficking of the silly things.

As long as the laws and promotional BS make you money by boosting sales, you don't care. You market to yahoos who are into stopping power and such. You call your weapons "tactical," "assault," whatever as long as it makes some yahoo drool -- and guns do.

and making a profit?

polluters, wall street thieves, etc.

And, those who drool over these weapons -- in today's society -- need to be examined by themselves or professionals.

IMHO a "well regulated militia" is NOT every Tom, Dick, and Harry walking around with a piece. Well regulated would imply something like the national guard. Let's compare murder rates with the UK where guns are banned generally. There is no comparison. Ban guns, period.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Jamaica blows the U.S. away in homicides yet they have very strict gun control laws. And Mexico, another country whose gun laws are often said to be some of the strictest in the world has nearly 4 times the amount of homicides that the U.S. does. Another is Brazil. And so on and so forth.

Gun control simply controls guns, not murders.

How about picking countries that don't have huge populations of desperate people living without hope and with corrupt, undermanned and badly trained police forces. Comparing their statistics to the U.S.A. is part of the Gun Nut mythology.

I have seen the web sites that defend your position and all of the talking points are like this. Ridiculous!

Look, what you argued was that comparisons between countries with and without gun control for murder rates would tell us that we should ban guns. That was your argument. You picked Great Britain out of a hat because it happens to suit your position, but now you conveniently want to ignore that within that comparison group there are countries which cut wholly against your position; you want to simply throw them out of the group for the only reason that you don't like the result.

If banning guns will reduce murder rates, how do you explain countries with stricter gun laws having higher murder rates than we do? Poverty? Poverty murders people? No sir, people murder people, and what those statistics show - the result you're straining to close your eyes to - is that if people want to kill each other they will find a way to do it.

South Africa is an interesting example. Not incredibly poor, not incredibly rich, somewhere near the median world income. They are currently trying to regulate the guns and are finding that criminals are now using weapons which have never been available to their public - banned weapons. That of course is because you can't ban your way around problems, much in the same way banning marijuana here certainly hasn't stopped its use.

Is it exactly the same? Has it increased? How successful are they at actually regulating guns?

It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife that with a gun. I doubt I could use a knife to kill but I could easily kill several people in a few minutes with a gun.

You can never really find a good comparison but you can keep throwing out NRA talking points.

You accuse me of cherry picking by choosing a country like ours to compare the you pick South Africa? That's just sad.

Is it because you're engaging in an ad hominem attack in a desperate effort to shore up your side of the argument? I suspect so given that I've never had any contact whatsoever with the NRA, and don't get any information from them whatsoever. I instead get the numbers from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

With respect to the movement of the numbers over time, I haven't seen statistics on that - so unlike you I don't presume to know things I couldn't possibly divine. With respect to actual regulation, I can tell you from having lived there that getting a gun in South America and Mexico is not very difficult (although illegally). But I suspect you're missing what your own question entails: How effective would an actual ban be here? If it's anything like prohibition - in which not only alcohol but guns flowed like wine - I'd suspect not very well, much like our prohibition of drugs hasn't really gotten us very far, or how our ban on automatic weapons hasn't stopped their usage in drug shootings and gang wars.

The comparison is good, as are the others, because in the end a gun is either regulated or not, and they either wind up killing people or they don't. You can try and spin your way around that all you like, but the fact is that murder rates are variable in any given environment - regulated or not. The simple fact is that people will always find a way to kill others. That's just a fact, one evinced by a rather long history existing entirely BEFORE guns were ever invented.

I didn't cherry pick South Africa, I included it in a list I presented to you. You know, the one you dismissed out of hand simply because you couldn't refute it ... speaking of sad.

They won't be on the street, mind you...and if they were I wish someone would tell me where, so I could add some free guns to my collection.

Gun control remains the third rail of politics. No serious effort to curb gun ownership will made for the foreseeable future.

Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban



You've lost.

Oh Christ! The car = gun insanity.

Try to get it straight, if you can:

Car: purpose is to get from point A to point B. Not a weapon.
Gun, purpose is to shoot something. a weapon.

Think you can remember that? Try hard.


"Zimmerman needs to be punished because in no way was he acting within the rights afforded him by the 2nd Amendment. "

No... he wasn't in a well regulated militia.

in the terms that they need to think of similarities instead of being spoonfed the argument itself, but the point is rather clear in this case: My guns are much like my cars inasmuch as I use neither of them to commit crimes. It's a fairly obvious point, one I suspect it took some doing to feign such obtuseness to ignore.

I'm lucky enough to not use my guns as weapons. I use them for sport. That you don't like the sport doesn't automatically make it an unacceptable or illegal one. It just means you don't like it, much in the same way as I think NASCAR is silly and dangerous but if people like it and want to do it - given that it's not illegal - I say more power to them. You on the other hand want to ban things you don't like because you're too simple to see that sometimes it's not only how you think it is. You seem to think guns can only be used as weapons whereas I have the benefit of knowing that they're not always used to kill. When they are misused like that the user should be prosecuted and jailed accordingly. But telling me that a sport I enjoy - and one which has the side benefit of protecting my house, should that situation arise - is authoritarian and not in keeping with the current laws of this country.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled on the subject, that the 2nd Amendment DOES give individuals the right to possess firearms. If you disagree with that decision that's your right. But it just so happens to be the law of this country. So let's not forget that fact since - living in a nation of laws - it tends to be rather important.

An interesting analogy is a baseball bat. People are beaten with them a lot, and of course a bat is a violent instrument: It's meant to strike another object. Well, my guns are intended to strike another object as well (in my case paper targets), but provided I'm responsible and also not driven by a motivation to want to strike a human target, my hobby hurts literally no one. Much like a baseball bat: Provided the batter doesn't take offense at a pitcher throwing inside to him and carry it out to the mound to beat the pitcher, it's a peaceful object with a violent potential; it only becomes violent when used that way. A gun isn't an inherently violent object: they have peaceful uses for millions of us. I've never been so much as tempted to use it in a violent way. Yet you want to take it away from me because you don't enjoy my hobby, and because some people misuse guns. Then I guess you're also going to be banning baseball bats, knives of any kind, and of course the internet because sometimes unscrupulous individuals use it to scam others.

Yours is a terribly simplistic argument, one teetering on the wrong idea that guns have literally only one purpose. The reality is that millions of us use them for entirely peaceful purposes having as little to do with violent crime as a baseball bat was intended to have (until misused). I have the legal right to my guns, the Supreme Court has just reaffirmed it. So if you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.

Guns have literally one purpose.

Other than the fact that both guns and cars are dangerous to operate the analogy falls apart. Very few people actually need a gun in order to function in society. A huge number of people need to operate cars as part of their daily life.

The supreme court is frequently full of shit.

The fact is that both can be used for good or bad entirely depending upon the intentions of the user. And of course accidents can and do happen with both things. So they are analogous although an analogy is of course just that: an analogy. I didn't say they're exactly the same thing; no one uses an analogy to compare two similar items to argue they're exactly the same thing. Otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be a statement that "these 2 are exactly the same item."

What I find strange is that some liberals talk about "nation of laws" and such - rightfully berating Bush's pre-Patriot Act warrant-less wiretapping program as unconstitutional, railing against people like Rick Santorum for wanting religion to control the public laws - but then dismissing a major part of our constitutional lawmaking process when it doesn't suit their agenda. I don't like every decision the court makes, but I do recognize that they have the power to do so and that it is the law of the land; e.g. it's not "shit" to me, it's the law. If I don't like a law that is made judicially I as a voter choose people for the office of president who will appoint different types of justices, but I don't walk around saying that they're "full of shit" given that I respect the constitutional process of making and enforcing law - much in the same way that I didn't respect Bush as a decent person, but I did maintain respect for the presidency itself and found myself disgusted when that Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at him.

I'm a proud liberal and proud American. That we have different takes on a given position doesn't mean one or both of us is/are full of shit, rather that we as human beings see an issue differently. I think there are reasonable arguments on both side of the gun control debate, and I don't think gun control advocates are just making it up, nor do I wholly dismiss their position simply because I don't agree. It's sad that some in America have absolutely no regard for an opposing side, instead feeling as though they alone have the license to the truth. It's things like that which create the hyperpartisan problems in Washington; it's literally why things don't get done. Right now that's mostly the teabags doing it, but there's a growing element of recalcitrant liberals seeming to think they should fight that fire with fire, not realizing that fighting with fire causes everything to burn.

You also face stiff penalties should you kill someone with a car while driving. There is no reason that they can't have these same requirements for owning a gun considering how dangerous they are.

All across the country there are shoot first and ask question later laws. That's basically what this one in Florida is.

Also, people have been punished for the wrongdoings of others for a while now. Not saying it's right, but that's just the way it is.

I don't support taking guns away, but I sure would like to see it more difficult to get a gun and the laws made so that discourages what happened to Trayvon.

You're perfectly within your rights to buy a car without having a license or insurance. The difference is using one, much in the same way carrying a weapon might be considered "using" it. If you conceal your weapon you must be licensed and have taken a class to do so. And simply owning a gun requires that you register it with your police department.

When and where people are punished for WRONGDOINGS of others I think you'll often find that they don't enjoy it, much as we gun owners don't want to be painted with the same brush as Zimmerman. The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't do anything like what he did, so the assertion that we deserve our rights to be curtailed is specious and wrongheaded: It seeks to strip a right away from everyone because a statistical few act poorly.

People unfortunately commit all sorts of crimes in this country. That's just a fact. You can take steps such as classes and psychological evaluations to determine weapons handling suitability, and I think most of us would agree that guns are too easy to obtain. But when one wants to punish the many for the actions of a few I think that person isn't altogether aware of the problem or how disputes are resolved.

Guns exist for 2 reasons....for killing and for self-defense. Owning and operating cars has more requirements than own and operating a gun. I find that pretty screwed up.

For as dangerous as these things are, there should be more regulation and limits on them. The same goes for the owners who think they have to have a gun for whatever reason.

This should be a no-brainer.

so I don't agree that they're intrinsically more dangerous. Obviously they can be deadly, but so can a lot of things that are right now not illegal.

With respect to guns' purpose I don't agree they exist only for those 2 reasons. I own them as a hobby and for self defense, a hobby in terms of target practice which is fun and relaxing to me. That some think they only have 2 violent uses is part of the problem: That lack of understanding of and appreciation for our sport causes a lot of us to feel as though we have to defend something which shouldn't really need a defense. Granted the guns themselves CAN be used for bad. But so can a lot of things. So we see it as hypocritical and naive to say we need to ban guns because they supposedly only have 2 violent uses when there are tons of potentially dangerous items that no one's trying to ban, and of course that ours do have a different, peaceful use.

Don't pretend they are a toy to have fun with. There is no getting around what they are and what they are supposed to do.

There is no reason why a car should have more regulation than a gun. None.

I never said they're toys. Far from it. What I said is that they're used in a hobby, not all hobbies being as safe as stamp collecting. They can be dangerous, no doubt about that. But not all of their uses are for killing. Actually most owners have never used it for that reason, and most hope to never use them in that way. I certainly hope I never have to use any of my guns for that reason. But of course I will if it becomes absolutely and unavoidably necessary.

We can agree that they should be equally regulated, cars and guns. But where we'll never agree would be on saying that guns should either be banned or so de facto limited by way of regulation that they're effectively banned for most users. That's a lot like what the Republicans are doing with abortions, regulating it and its dispensaries to such an extent that they don't even need to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's death by regulation, and it ain't any prettier or better than simply taking someone's rights away the old fashioned way.

I see no 2nd amendment problem there. You can bear your arms all around your house and property. Actually firing the thing is regulated. So should taking the weapon out in public. Even better, regulate ammunition. Require a license to purchase, manufacture or possess ammunition.

Which is why my weapons are registered as they're supposed to be. When I transport them to a gun range I always do so unloaded with the ammunition far away from the weapons, although in my state that's not actually required by law. I do that to show any police officer who might pull me over that I had no intent to be packing an arsenal, so that he or she will view it as credible that I'm simply headed to the range.

I wouldn't object to "licenses" to buy ammunition if it served a purpose. If the police can trace bullets used in the commission of some crime back to a certain batch of rounds sold in a certain area, and through investigation can then prove who ultimately bought them, I think that would be a good thing. I'm not an FBI forensic analyst so I don't know if that's possible or not. But if it isn't it would seem like just another layer of regulation which doesn't serve much of a tangible aim other than to inconvenience usually legal gun owners. But like I say, maybe that is possible, and if it is I'd support it.

"Which is why my weapons are registered as they're supposed to be." There are only 2-3 states that require registration of firearms, and there are laws against the feds. haveing any type of registration.

The yellow form(4473) that you fill out when purchising a firearm remains in the possesion of the dealer, if BATFE wants to see them then they must have a warrent to do so. And if they want to copy one they must bring a copy machine to the shop, they can not, by law, be removed from the dealers possesion.

At one time you were required to sign a purchase form when buying ammunition. This form recorded your name, address, TDL, and ammo bought by caliber. That was stopped 30 or so years ago as being unneeded.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I haven't bought one in a while, and I know the federal laws changed a bit. But last time I bought a handgun in a store (a different process than buying one from a classified ad, for example) I had to wait 3 days to pick it up, and in that time it had been automatically registered with the police department (the gun store did that after I'd filled out and signed a form which they presented to the police department on my behalf).

If you're caught in possession of a handgun here which isn't registered you will be arrested for possession of an unregistered handgun. Shotguns and (non-FFL) rifles are not subject to our local registration laws.

"When driving a car, you are required to attend a class, have a license and insurance"

No, you really aren't.

Those things are required ONLY for use on public roads. You can drive on private property to your hearts content without them.

The key there being USE ON PUBLIC ROADS.

As for ownership? None of the above are required.

"There is no reason that they can't have these same requirements for owning a gun considering how dangerous they are."

See how you're equating ownership of a gun with USAGE IN PUBLIC of a motor vehicle?

Apples and oranges.

Beyond that, feel completely free to point out which part of the post you were replying to, is not factual or truth.


I won't hold my breath.

it only makes sense to gun nuts. Guns aren't cars. You can't drive your kids to school in a car.

Second, I'm not a "nut" simply because I like millions of other Americans use my 2nd Amendment rights. I resent being labeled as if my free exercise of constitutional rights makes me a nut. You've never seen how I handle and safeguard my weapons; you're merely tarring me with a broad brush because you don't like guns and their owners. It's childish, friend.

I see some of you don't understand how an analogy works. Allow me to correct that. You see, an analogy isn't saying thing A and thing B are so exactly similar that they're actually the same exact thing. That, instead, would be a statement that "thing A and thing B are exactly the same thing." Instead, an analogy suggests that the two things share similar characteristics, and that in some limited cases it's useful to consider how you might treat one to know how to treat another. For example, just like a car, you wouldn't want to handle your gun while drunk. Those are similarities. But what you're wanting to do is say "well, my car has electronic fuel injection, and I can't seem to find that same unit on this 9mm, therefore they're entirely dissimilar and any discussion about them in analogical form is entirely useless." It would be if we were talking about fuel injection, but that's not what we're discussing - until someone feigning obtuseness makes some ridiculous exaggeration clearly far beyond the bounds of the analogy itself.

You needn't persist offending everyone with whom you disagree, labeling us all "nuts" and essentially suggesting that we were brainwashed by the NRA. Many of us hate the NRA and nearly all of what they stand for, and as such your implication that we're simply regurgitating something they "taught" us is childish, wrong, and pathetic. And by the way, you most certainly CAN "drive your kids to school in a car."

Fabulous.

There is certainly nothing wrong with training and ... "a little more training" ... as we used to say at the academy where I once taught.


In our state, getting a concealed weapons permit includes almost a week of use-of-force and safety training in the classroom with one day on the range leading up to qualification. The range is only seven yards which is about as far as anybody needs to shoot in a defensive situation. The classroom instruction is actually what a law enforcement officer receives, while LEOs receive several other weeks of training covering report writing, legal codes, radio communications skills, defensive driving and pursuit, CPR/first aid, chemical munitions, baton, mechanical restraints, etc, and finally, firearms training in the last week and a half on a 25 yard range. Basic course officers have to show proficiency in their department issue sidearm and the 12 gauge riot shotgun only. More advanced tactical officers and instructors with experience in the field are trained in various rifles, rifle marksmanship at greater ranges, and forced entry, barricade, and hostage procedures.


That said, private citizens who complete the CPW class and who conceal carry seem to have better safety and engagement records than basic certified law enforcement officers. I think the reason for that is that armed citizens tend to look at bearing arms as a martial art that requires ongoing training in order to remain honed, ready and proficient, while most officers often view guns as a job related nuisance.

I always answer, "Great! Every time they issue one of those, It gets a little bit more dangerous to be an innocent bystander."

You got that so right!

I'm going to sign on to your statement and co-endorse it, if I may.

who believes in the second amendment. No one. It's antiquated, period.

I figure it will be antiquated about time humans are immortal or indestructible or extinct.

As long as there are those who can use deadly force, there will be a need for ample ability to defend one's self.

What other Civil Liberties do you feel are past their time? I think we need them all and on steroids including the 2nd Amendment which should be broadened to at least making any weapons systems sold to non-NATO nations available to law abiding citizens, which probably puts me further out than the NRA.

Gun control is authoritarian not liberal and I have no idea how the two got conflated.

I vote and donate accordingly & I'm not alone.

You & yours have the upper hand for the moment.

Owning a firearm is not a civil right from the way I think about it.

You're not discriminated against in any way for having or not having a firearm.
Who could know such a thing?

2a fundies have made a bunch of hysterical arguments re: gun ownership & you're winning. For now.

grant the right to individuals to bear arms for the hell of it.

and is more along the lines of evil (if willful) regardless of politics.

Sometimes the only way to keep the innocent out of a grave (or from being raped) is for the innocent to defend themselves with everything they can muster.