Gun Control Discussion

[HashiriyaS14]

Futhermore Indianapolis has a higher Population 795K vs 588K and has a much lower viloent crime rate than Washington DC.bud

Not that I'm asserting that it is for sure "x" or "y", what is the difference in per capita income between the two cities?

[Cold_Zero]

I believe that DC has a higher per capita income than Indianapolis. $48k vs $21k, but I need to get more recent figures as the numbers come from the 2000 Census.bud

[hsckris]

Washington DC is also not really comparable to Indianapolis, IMO. WDC's issues are rooted more in extreme, entrenched urban poverty that has spanned several generations for the same group. I've never liked this comparison.

Anyway, my point is NOT whether or not the DC gun ban in particular is a good idea. My point is that LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT should have final say on these matters. If a given locality decides that, through the wills of the electorate, given gun laws should be made, then I think they should be able to govern for themselves. It's a states' rights issue.

I'm all for giving everyone (OPEN) carry, but I'm not the elected official of any of these people, they should be able to decide for themselves so long as that decision doesn't involve a complete ban on firearms.

I *personally* support lax gun laws. I think it's worked great in VA, but I think locales should be self-determining.

Bobo: Your disappointment concerns me greatly. If I could will your disappointment into being a tangible item, I would almost certainly toss it on the ground and pee on it.

I'm sorry, but there is no argument for a local gun ban (especially after the recent Sup. Ct. decision). No political unit in America can constitutionally outlaw guns (short of a constitutional amendment).America is a constitutional republic, therefore the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Where the Constitution speaks on an issue there is no room for other government entities to infringe on constitutionally provided rights. In fact, that is the only way the Constitution operates -- as against state action. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution generally does not guarantee an individual rights as againts private parties or entities.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm sorry, but there is no argument for a local gun ban (especially after the recent Sup. Ct. decision). No political unit in America can constitutionally outlaw guns (short of a constitutional amendment).America is a constitutional republic, therefore the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Where the Constitution speaks on an issue there is no room for other government entities to infringe on constitutionally provided rights. In fact, that is the only way the Constitution operates -- as against state action. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution generally does not guarantee an individual rights as againts private parties or entities.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think that firearms CAN be banned anywhere, and I don't recall saying that they could be. That would quite plainly violate the 2nd Amendment, as recently occurred in DC.

I think, however, that certain TYPES can still be banned, but you can't say "no guns". Obviously automatic weapons and RPG's are illegal, so where's the line? Short-barreled shotguns? All Handguns? I don't know where the line is, but I"m just trying to prove that it's obviously somewhere between "everything is legal" and "nothing is legal". To a certain extent, this "line in the sand" needs to remain a local judgment rather than one of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, I even support the idea of "bear" in "keep and bear" referring to carry, BUT I think this must require registration. I think you should be able to carry a firearm, but I also think that everyone who is legally carrying firearms should be on record so that bullet-matching can be performed at crime scenes, et cetera.

Again, these are obviously my own subjective judgments. What is NOT subjective is this:

1.) You cannot ban ALL guns, due to the 2nd Amendment (thank goodness)

2.) Carry should be legal

3.) EVERYTHING ELSE is up for grabs. This includes registration, mandatory training courses, etc. If you're going to read the 2nd Amendment literally to provide for the 2 points above, then you need to also see that it doesn't literally FORBID any of this other stuff, and so it's all ultimately okay via the letter-of-the-law.

Everything else we can argue about, but these 3 points are the hard and fast constitutional law aspects that are not subject to any debate.

[Jager]

sorry to thread necro here, but hash gotta ask why you are so sure your bullet matching and other efforts work? did you read the way actual gun laws read and are enforced? alot of what you are saying doesnt jive with what exists.

such as a class 3 endorsement means the fbi/atf can pay you a visit whenever with no warning and ask to see your guns, all of them, and they better be there and registered. if not well sucks to be you in prison or with no guns or ffl.

obama is on record voting for the no gunstore within 5 miles of a park or a school.

considering the over 40% of gun stores being in range of a "park" or a school(doesnt matter that they never said or defined what that really means public private? vocational? adult college?) that means its a defacto way of getting around gun laws by attacking the suppliers, who are held very tightly in control by the BATF.

also biden is a notorious anti gun person, he has been for YEARS, so obamas choices put him squarely anti gun. he has voted for all kinds of anti gun legislation and he and feinstein are real cozy. its ok for them to have guns, but we dont need them.....

btw that rural stop in "southwest va" included a stop in lynchburg. he talked at my highschool. too bad the media thinks we are "rural" considering what we are, what we buil and manufacture here, and the stuff lynchburg has been involved in like building part of the atom bomb etc. but yeah rural eh....

anyway the supreme court upholding the right to keep and bear arms means that the DC gun ban doesnt work, granted it never did anyway, but the gun control acts of 1932 and 1964 are still legal and followed. ie no full auto weapons wthout extreme oversight, and 64 made background checks and paperwork mandatory, no mail order guns after that.

to expect or demand more checking or time then VA's current system is rather wasteful tax dollar wise, and isnt really doing anything for the citizen.

please read my gun control thread posted weeks ago if you want hard facts on how this works.

to anyone who has questions feel free to ask, this is my job, and so i understand and can be the other POV if necessary. alot goes on behind the counter that civvies never know about, and maybe its time that its better known. (handy random tidbit, I am registered with the FBI, fingerprints and all to preform a background check, failure to control my gun seller id could land me in jail, just one of many controls on the dealer to make sure gn sales are done properly.)

[Cold_Zero]

Nate at church was talking about the BATF stopping by his house in Wisconsin when he was a kid, to talk to his dad. I have never heard of anyone give a positive remark with their dealings with the BATF.

[hsckris]

btw that rural stop in "southwest va" included a stop in lynchburg. he talked at my highschool. too bad the media thinks we are "rural" considering what we are, what we buil and manufacture here, and the stuff lynchburg has been involved in like building part of the atom bomb etc. but yeah rural eh....

Lynchburg can be considered rural, it all depends on your perspective or point of reference.Is it rural compared to Gloucester, VA (or similiar)? No. Is it rural compared to Nova or D.C.? Yes.

to anyone who has questions feel free to ask, this is my job, and so i understand and can be the other POV if necessary. alot goes on behind the counter that civvies never know about, and maybe its time that its better known. (handy random tidbit, I am registered with the FBI, fingerprints and all to preform a background check, failure to control my gun seller id could land me in jail, just one of many controls on the dealer to make sure gn sales are done properly.)

You are a FFL or whatever that term is? Thats cool. I'm pretty sure the "behind the scenes" stuff would vary state to state.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

3.) EVERYTHING ELSE is up for grabs. This includes registration, mandatory training courses, etc. If you're going to read the 2nd Amendment literally to provide for the 2 points above, then you need to also see that it doesn't literally FORBID any of this other stuff, and so it's all ultimately okay via the letter-of-the-law.

Why do you hate the poor?

[HashiriyaS14]

Why do you hate the poor?

LOL WUT?

How on earth did you get that from my comment about constitutional law?

[Cold_Zero]

Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them. -Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”-1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

page7.Question 35. Do you support state legislation to:a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.b. ban assualt weapons? Yes.c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

C is a non issue, but man Obama gets my vote /sarcasm

[telcoman]

I think Telco is changing his mind:

Not exactly!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...t=nyt

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

Here is what the NYTimes didn't tell you.

Quote »Fox News, the only news you need]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444 ... lWESTFIELD, Mass. —

With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi submachine gun at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.

It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.

Now gun safety experts — and some gun enthusiasts at the club where the shooting happened — are wondering why such a young child was allowed to fire a weapon used in war. Local, state and federal authorities are also investigating whether everyone involved had proper licenses or if anyone committed a criminal act.

"It's easy to lose control of a weapon like that ... they are used on a battleground for a very good reason," said Jerry Belair, a spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence, based in Newton, Massachusetts. "It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching. It's not a toy. It's not something to play with."

Police said Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Connecticut, was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, on Sunday afternoon, shortly after firing a 9mm micro Uzi submachine gun at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, co-sponsored by C.O.P. Firearms & Training.

"The weapon was loaded and ready to fire," Westfield police Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. "The 8-year-old victim had the Uzi and as he was firing the weapon, the front end of the weapon went up with the backfire and he ended up receiving a round in his head."

Nunez said the investigation is continuing.

Christopher was attending the show with his father and older brother, Colin. Christopher had fired handguns and rifles before, but Sunday was his first time firing an automatic weapon, said his father, Charles Bizilj.

Bizilj told the Boston Globe he was about 10 feet (three meters) behind his son and reaching for his camera when the weapon fired. He said his family avoided the larger weapons, but he let his son try the Uzi because it is a small weapon with little recoil.

"This accident was truly a mystery to me," said Bizilj, director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford, Connecticut. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."

Police are calling the shooting an accident but are investigating whether everyone connected with the incident had proper weapons permits. Massachusetts requires licenses to own firearms, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issues different licenses to possess machine guns.

The machine gun shoot drew hundreds of people from as far away as Maine and Virginia. An advertisement said it would include machine gun demonstrations and rentals and free handgun lessons.

"It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.

"You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL," the ad said.

The ad also said children under 16 would be admitted free, and both adults and children were offered free .22-caliber pistol and rifle shooting.

Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and they are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor, Nunez said. The name of the instructor who was with the boy at the time was not released.

"We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident," Nunez said Monday.[/quote]Now a few things:1. Gross judgment on one person’s part should not equate to a total ban on certain activities. 2. This was the boy's first time, the adult should have been more safety oriented by:a. Holding the weapon with the child.b. Had the child go through a dry run on semi autoc. Loading the weapon up with a lot less ammod. Instructing the child on the firing characteristics of the weapone. Not turned to grab a camera and been distracted. Assign someone else to take pictures.

This aint rocket science people.

Also, it wasn't the recoil that caused him to get out of control; it was the 'Rise' of the weapon. Fully automatic weapons have a characteristic of the barrel rising up and if you are not holding on to the weapon properly, it will rise all the way up and come back on you.

Quote »Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and they are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor, Nunez said. The name of the instructor who was with the boy at the time was not released.[/quote]And we see how well their strict laws have worked out in this situation.

[marlin29311]

8 year old boys should not be shooting fully automatic (or any variant of a projectile firearm) AT ALL. They do not inhibit the honed motor skills or musclar strength to yield such kick-back forces. I don't blame anyone but the parents for this happening - what were you thinking? What reason does an 8 year old need to fire a submachine gun?

I'm all for legal adults owning guns, but seriously, this is an epic fail on the parent's fault. I feel horrible about this, but in all reality, this should have never happened, and shows like this should not even allow people under a certian age (lets say around 14-ish) should not even be allowed to enter.

-1 to the parents-1 to the gun show

Would you let your 8 year old drive your car? Equally a dangerous weapon in the right hands...

[Cold_Zero]

Telco,How does this affect you? Last time I checked you don't live in Massachusetts, you don't attend gun show exhibitions like this and you probably don't have neighbors around you that shoot full auto weapons.

So what's the deal?

[Cold_Zero]

Parents today appear to be more concerned with being popular with their kids and being their friend, rather than keeping them safe and raising them right. Some of that may be at work here in this incident.

While I think 8 would be way to young to handle a fully automatic weapon, I wouldn't necessarily think it’s too young to handle a firearm with the proper safety controls. Then again, when we were at the BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) range our cadre barked out commands of how we approached our shooting positions, where we had to point our barrels, when we could load our weapon and when we could fire our weapon. We were in college and even then they treated us like 5 year olds. Probably because we were engaging in a dangerous activity and they were responsible for our safety.

Then again, I let my daughter drive my truck/car into the garage from the drive way. She is only 3.

[marlin29311]

Then again, I let my daughter drive my truck/car into the garage from the drive way. She is only 3.

how? I mean that in a physical sense...wouldn't a 3 year old be too small to reach the pedals and the wheel?

But also note that's not like letting an 8 year old drive around town un-superviesed...

[Cold_Zero]

It was a joke, but she does like to sit in my lap and move the steering wheel all over the place. So I creep up to the garage going .5mph and let her drive away. When we get close to the garage, daddy takes over control of the wheel. She has yet to hit the grass, though.. Good job girl!

[marlin29311]

It was a joke, but she does like to sit in my lap and move the steering wheel all over the place. So I creep up to the garage going .5mph and let her drive away. When we get close to the garage, daddy takes over control of the wheel. She has yet to hit the grass, though.. Good job girl!

haha, i'm cool with that - i was just confused if she somehow did all the driving work. I think it's cute!

[Cold_Zero]

She always wants to bring the cars in with daddy. Once she was drying off from her bath and made it into the garage naked! I yelled at her to get inside and get her cloths on. My biggest fear is that she will run outside while I am pulling the Pathfinder in, since I can't see small things that are close. So now she stays in the car/truck and helps me pull them in. It's better than her flipping on all the dome lights and running the batteries down!

[barrigas14]

The only control I see that should be in effect is:

The private sale of firearms. From my understanding (and it could have changed) I can sale my gun to anyone with out a background check. Meaning that I could sale it to a felon and not know it. SO, I think that private sales should in fact be registered and background checked prior to sale. That is my only change.

Little iffy on the whole automatics to the common man thing too. I like how you have to do allot to even be considered for it.

But stop trying to ban assault rifles! I love Ar's and FAL's and evertime they try to pass **** those are effected!

[Urabus GodofTraction]

LOL WUT?

How on earth did you get that from my comment about constitutional law?

Regestration and classes take up time and money. The "poor" have neither. By requiring either, you're effectively unarming the poor, a group that most needs self-defense. Even if such things WERE constitutionally acceptable (they're not), they aren't morally acceptable (and slippery slope etc).

See my comments in the "State's Rights Paradox" thread.

But stop trying to ban assault rifles! I love Ar's and FAL's and evertime they try to pass **** those are effected!

Psssst. Semi-automatic versions of ARs and FALs aren't assault rifles (as they're not full auto). That's a scary word for those scary black guns! Call them "sporting" rifles or something, who'd want to ban that?

[Cold_Zero]

An FAL wouldn't really be considered an Assault Weapon; it fits more in the Battle Rifle label, just like the StG 57, HK G3, MAS-49, K43, SVT40 and M1 Garand. The FNC would be Fabrique Nationale's assault weapon.

But you are correct sporterized versions of Assault Weapons or Military Style weapons really cease to be 'Assault Weapons' because their features have been changed in order to adapt them for civilian use. Now the StG44 is the original 'Storm Rifle' aka 'Assault Weapon.'

[HashiriyaS14]

Regestration and classes take up time and money. The "poor" have neither. By requiring either, you're effectively unarming the poor, a group that most needs self-defense. Even if such things WERE constitutionally acceptable (they're not), they aren't morally acceptable (and slippery slope etc).

Last I checked, guns cost money too.

If people can pay a tiny fee to register a car, they can register a firearm as well.

How much would it seriously cost? If you can't afford a $25 registration fee or a $75 two-hour class on how to operate your gun, you shouldn't be spending money on firearms in the first place, you should probably be buying food.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Last I checked, guns cost money too.

If people can pay a tiny fee to register a car, they can register a firearm as well.

How much would it seriously cost? If you can't afford a $25 registration fee or a $75 two-hour class on how to operate your gun, you shouldn't be spending money on firearms in the first place, you should probably be buying food.

A brand new High Point pistol (which, while ugly, seems to be the bottom line in usable handguns), is $150. We'll add your $100 fee to that.$250.Even in Florida, a concealed carry permit costs $35, plus another $35 for the mandatory fingerprinting, and the class is roughly $175.$495.What's next? If a firearm registration is acceptable, how much with the ammunition permit cost? Now, what's an ammunition permit going to cost?

What should the cost of self-defense be? What's the libertarian half of you think about registration? Your duality is interesting.

Also, never compare a firearm to a car.

[Cold_Zero]

How much does it cost citizens to register to vote? In my state its Free!

Also, in my state it's free to register your firearm, because you don't have to! Now if you want to conceal carry your firearm? That is going to cost you.bud

[HashiriyaS14]

A brand new High Point pistol (which, while ugly, seems to be the bottom line in usable handguns), is $150. We'll add your $100 fee to that.$250.Even in Florida, a concealed carry permit costs $35, plus another $35 for the mandatory fingerprinting, and the class is roughly $175.$495.What's next? If a firearm registration is acceptable, how much with the ammunition permit cost? Now, what's an ammunition permit going to cost?

What should the cost of self-defense be? What's the libertarian half of you think about registration? Your duality is interesting.

Also, never compare a firearm to a car.

My Libertarian-LEANING tendencies don't have anything to do with it.

I didn't even necessarily say that I think registration is NECESSARY everywhere, if you actually *read* my posts.

I'm saying that, from a constitutional law standpoint, objectively, the justification is there for localities and states to be able to institute registration and training programs if their populaces want them. THIS IS FACT, this is not my opinion.

The 2nd Amendment provides only for "KEEP AND BEAR", indicating that no state or locality can forbid owning or carrying. Obviously some DO prevent carrying, and I think this is unconstitutional and wrong. That said, the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T say that "thou shalt not require registration, trigger locks, or classes". If it doesn't SAY you can't do it, then you can do it. That's how the law works.

I wasn't arguing what my personal beliefs are, I was arguing what is feasible given the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Pay attention.

The problem with much of the pro-gun community is that they can't seem to have a discussion on the issue without assuming everyone is out to get them. I'm not the opposing viewpoint here buddy, I'm just informing you and others of what is possible if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted literally as opposed to via precedent.

Every time someone so much as mentions the words "registration" or "permit" or whatever, even if they're not actually suggesting these things HAPPEN, a certain contingent of the pro-gun community automatically switches into "ZOMG THEY R COMIN TO TAKE MAH SHXT AWAY!!!! WHAT'S NEXT??!?!" It's ridiculous.

Just because I say "X and Y are possible" doesn't mean I'm arguing that I think they should occur, it was just an FYI.

What the hell is an "ammunition permit"?

[marlin29311]

Also, never compare a firearm to a car.

Why not?

[Cold_Zero]

What the hell is an "ammunition permit"?

Hash,Because attacking firearms can be unpopular with certain voter blocks, the anti gun lobby and some politicians (mainly at state levels) have begun to attack ammunition with the understanding if you can make it hard or impossible to purchase ammunition, you effectively do away (ban) firearms. The NRA-ILA and many good politicians have been fighting these efforts in California, Illinois and other states where they attempt to institute:

Banning Lead bullets- California's Condor Protect Acts

Finger printing of ammunition- Which would require all non finger printed ammunition to be turned in, thus hurting people (like me) that stocked up on ammunition and now have to shell out more money to buy new ammo.

Requirements for permits to purchase ammunition- A way of further taxing and controlling the purchase of ammunition.

Exurbanite increases in ammunition taxes- ammunition at the federal level is heavily taxed already.

[sensibleS13driver]

You don't need to wait, be fingerprinted, or bg checked for a hunting knife. But you aren't allowed to stockpile high-explosives.

They're all arms. Obviously you are drawing a line along a scale of "arms". A constitutionalist can't expect the framers to have imagined modern fire arms. If you want to stick to original intent then why can't the government infringe on anything beyond giant barrel-loaded muskets? Though I do not think that registration even counts as infringing on keeping and bearing.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

How much does it cost citizens to register to vote? In my state its Free!

Also, in my state it's free to register your firearm, because you don't have to! Now if you want to conceal carry your firearm? That is going to cost you.bud

My Libertarian-LEANING tendencies don't have anything to do with it.

I didn't even necessarily say that I think registration is NECESSARY everywhere, if you actually *read* my posts.

I'm saying that, from a constitutional law standpoint, objectively, the justification is there for localities and states to be able to institute registration and training programs if their populaces want them. THIS IS FACT, this is not my opinion.

The 2nd Amendment provides only for "KEEP AND BEAR", indicating that no state or locality can forbid owning or carrying. Obviously some DO prevent carrying, and I think this is unconstitutional and wrong. That said, the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T say that "thou shalt not require registration, trigger locks, or classes". If it doesn't SAY you can't do it, then you can do it. That's how the law works.

I wasn't arguing what my personal beliefs are, I was arguing what is feasible given the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Pay attention.

The problem with much of the pro-gun community is that they can't seem to have a discussion on the issue without assuming everyone is out to get them. I'm not the opposing viewpoint here buddy, I'm just informing you and others of what is possible if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted literally as opposed to via precedent.

Every time someone so much as mentions the words "registration" or "permit" or whatever, even if they're not actually suggesting these things HAPPEN, a certain contingent of the pro-gun community automatically switches into "ZOMG THEY R COMIN TO TAKE MAH SHXT AWAY!!!! WHAT'S NEXT??!?!" It's ridiculous.

Just because I say "X and Y are possible" doesn't mean I'm arguing that I think they should occur, it was just an FYI.

What the hell is an "ammunition permit"?

Consitutionally and morally, firearm registration and a fee to register to vote/vote "poll tax" are identical.

A completely fee-less registration (ie: voting) would be consitutionally acceptable. It would not be morally or slippery-slopely acceptable.

These are ammunition permits:

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearm or firearm ammunition within the State must have in their possession a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name.http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0203.htm

Registration or permits are a step away from "ZOMG they are out to get us." I suppose in that way I sympathize with homosexuals wanting to get married. Civil unions can be identical, but they want marraige because, well, first marraige, then what?

Why not?

Use of a car on public roads isn't a right.

You don't need to wait, be fingerprinted, or bg checked for a hunting knife. But you aren't allowed to stockpile high-explosives.

They're all arms. Obviously you are drawing a line along a scale of "arms". A constitutionalist can't expect the framers to have imagined modern fire arms. If you want to stick to original intent then why can't the government infringe on anything beyond giant barrel-loaded muskets? Though I do not think that registration even counts as infringing on keeping and bearing.

The founding fathers had no idea of the internet when they wrote the Constitution. Emails aren't subject to free speach laws nor freedom from unwarrented search.

Oh wait...
Modified by charlieo at 3:29 PM 10/31/2008