Gun Control: Whose definition?
- Thread starter brightnorm
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
JonSidneyB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Thomas well said...
To the person mentioning the Swiss model...the Swiss supposedly have the lowest crime rate and longest average life span on earth.
I personally am very glad that I do not live in a high crime state that does not allow carry.
I carry every day and am glad I do. Many years ago I was involved in a shooting. The criminals didn't seem to care about the law.
To the person mentioning the Swiss model...the Swiss supposedly have the lowest crime rate and longest average life span on earth.
I personally am very glad that I do not live in a high crime state that does not allow carry.
I carry every day and am glad I do. Many years ago I was involved in a shooting. The criminals didn't seem to care about the law.
Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
A couple more of my thoughts.
A lifeguard has the responsibility (as do Dr.'s, nurses of all types, and EMT's passing an accident) to protect individuals. Police are mot to deter crime by catching the criminal after the fact to face punishment for the crime already commited. Me, I prefer prevention.
The only real problem with requiring tests and paying for training, is that it then makes a protected right into a granted privelage. Should newspapers be required to have a waiting period before publishing to make sure their facts are correct? Or that their writers aren't sitting at home faking their colums ala' Jayson Blair?
Also, what is reasonable when it comes to pricing? I might be able to afford a $100 training class (and that is still high, but I did pay it), but to someone who barely scraped together enough for a used police trade in .38, that $100 might be a hell of a lot. Right now that would be a lot for me with some moving expenses, and a wife who's a grad student, and I have friends who couldn't swing it (he's in school, and they've just had a baby), without a little bit of hardship.
I don't miss the lack of a full auto gun, but contrary to Hollywood, there hasn't been a cop killed ever by a full auto Uzi (maybe not by an UZI at all), and the only real life crime that was commited by perople armed with FA weapons in the last couple decades (I think, could be wrong) were those two guys who robbed the bank in North Hollywood. Right after Heat came out. I've talked to cops from various locations, mostly in Northern Virginia (way too close to DC), who said the last thing they were worried about were automatic weapons.
And besides, how many people who go through the extra stringent background checks at the federal level, place themselves under the possibly of surprise checks from the BATF, pay a tax of $300 every year, and then spend at least 5 grand on a 15 year old used M16 would use it rob a liquer store?
For personal defense my .45 is normally plenty, but for home defense I like my 12 guage, and realy want an AR15 just from familiarity. And would really want an AR15 in the event of a riot. Luckily those don't happen here.
A lifeguard has the responsibility (as do Dr.'s, nurses of all types, and EMT's passing an accident) to protect individuals. Police are mot to deter crime by catching the criminal after the fact to face punishment for the crime already commited. Me, I prefer prevention.
The only real problem with requiring tests and paying for training, is that it then makes a protected right into a granted privelage. Should newspapers be required to have a waiting period before publishing to make sure their facts are correct? Or that their writers aren't sitting at home faking their colums ala' Jayson Blair?
Also, what is reasonable when it comes to pricing? I might be able to afford a $100 training class (and that is still high, but I did pay it), but to someone who barely scraped together enough for a used police trade in .38, that $100 might be a hell of a lot. Right now that would be a lot for me with some moving expenses, and a wife who's a grad student, and I have friends who couldn't swing it (he's in school, and they've just had a baby), without a little bit of hardship.
I don't miss the lack of a full auto gun, but contrary to Hollywood, there hasn't been a cop killed ever by a full auto Uzi (maybe not by an UZI at all), and the only real life crime that was commited by perople armed with FA weapons in the last couple decades (I think, could be wrong) were those two guys who robbed the bank in North Hollywood. Right after Heat came out. I've talked to cops from various locations, mostly in Northern Virginia (way too close to DC), who said the last thing they were worried about were automatic weapons.
And besides, how many people who go through the extra stringent background checks at the federal level, place themselves under the possibly of surprise checks from the BATF, pay a tax of $300 every year, and then spend at least 5 grand on a 15 year old used M16 would use it rob a liquer store?
For personal defense my .45 is normally plenty, but for home defense I like my 12 guage, and realy want an AR15 just from familiarity. And would really want an AR15 in the event of a riot. Luckily those don't happen here.
Tomas
Banned
TSG68 said: " ... and I believe it is more than likely that even permit holders are not allowed carry in city govt. buildings unless they are an active duty LEO."
Just as a side note, I have attended a lot of city council meetings, and I'm always carrying there. In my state there are a limited number of public places where carry is not permitted. Courts, places where prisoners are kept, schools, the "over 21 only" portions of places that serve liquor and possible one or two others. Of course Post Office and Social Security, and GSA and other Federal locations are on the list, but NOT by state law. City, county, and state offices are not called out as prohibited - yet. *
One of the local shopping centers I frequent has "No Firearms Allowed" signs on all their entrance doors (tiny dark gold on brown 10 point text, and the mention of firearms comes after all the notices about no soliciting, etc).
When entering that mall, I make it a point of going in through any of the stores, since none of THEM have such a notice. This alows me to quite honestly say that I did NOT pass, or have an opportunity to read, any of their signs on my way in or out should I be stopped for whatever reason inside.
(The mall, being private rather than public property, can ban carry on their premises if they wish to.)
I was on jury duty last week, and, of course, had my usual complement on me when I showed up at City Hall. I carried, as usual, through the building until I got to the entrance to the courtroom where I unloaded my firearms and turned them over to one of the court clerks and got a reciept.
I picked them up, and loaded them on the spot, on my way out.
If the folks around me were nervous in any way, they certainly hid it well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
* Just a thought that struck me as I re-read this: We can all see how well the absolute and complete ban on firearms has served the US Postal Service ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Just as a side note, I have attended a lot of city council meetings, and I'm always carrying there. In my state there are a limited number of public places where carry is not permitted. Courts, places where prisoners are kept, schools, the "over 21 only" portions of places that serve liquor and possible one or two others. Of course Post Office and Social Security, and GSA and other Federal locations are on the list, but NOT by state law. City, county, and state offices are not called out as prohibited - yet. *
One of the local shopping centers I frequent has "No Firearms Allowed" signs on all their entrance doors (tiny dark gold on brown 10 point text, and the mention of firearms comes after all the notices about no soliciting, etc).
When entering that mall, I make it a point of going in through any of the stores, since none of THEM have such a notice. This alows me to quite honestly say that I did NOT pass, or have an opportunity to read, any of their signs on my way in or out should I be stopped for whatever reason inside.
(The mall, being private rather than public property, can ban carry on their premises if they wish to.)
I was on jury duty last week, and, of course, had my usual complement on me when I showed up at City Hall. I carried, as usual, through the building until I got to the entrance to the courtroom where I unloaded my firearms and turned them over to one of the court clerks and got a reciept.
I picked them up, and loaded them on the spot, on my way out.
If the folks around me were nervous in any way, they certainly hid it well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
* Just a thought that struck me as I re-read this: We can all see how well the absolute and complete ban on firearms has served the US Postal Service ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
MichiganMan,
I'm not ignoring you, my service has been down all morning. Nice catch...I don't make sense all the time. I do agree, requirements for ownership would violate the 2nd Amendment, but it makes me wonder about the age requirement as well. If every American has RKBA, including children, how can the sales of firearms/ammunition to children be restricted?
Of course, once we evolve a little, we won't need to worry about any of this nonsense anyway!
I'm not ignoring you, my service has been down all morning. Nice catch...I don't make sense all the time. I do agree, requirements for ownership would violate the 2nd Amendment, but it makes me wonder about the age requirement as well. If every American has RKBA, including children, how can the sales of firearms/ammunition to children be restricted?
Of course, once we evolve a little, we won't need to worry about any of this nonsense anyway!
Didn't really want to throw my hat into this, but I felt like chimin' in...
You do have the right to carry a weapon. It's a constitutional right. I'm not going to argue that (it's for another day)... But even for things like Freedom of Speech or of the Press, it only goes so far. There are limits, as you can't approach a print company (say, Hallmark) and expect to be granted printing rights for a book for free. Or you could practice a religion without any worries, but if your religion, for arguments sake, included cannibalism, then it's not going to be pretty.
My point is, even if you're guaranteed a constitutional right, you have obligations to meet (whether it would be age, criminal background, etc) before that right is granted to you. And you can certainly lose that right if you become a convicted felon or even if you're in the military... Having it in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean anyone is given and guaranteed that right. In the sense that something like the Right to Assemble can be taken away in martial law or you have to be of certain age to own a gun, it is more a privilige than a right...
I have the same concerns over gun safety and training as mentioned here. That's my biggest beef with "gun control/non-control"... Some of the ideas listed here are excellent for educating the public about gun safety and proper use, but the problem is getting them passed without the feeling that they're going to prevent law abiding people from getting a gun.
You do have the right to carry a weapon. It's a constitutional right. I'm not going to argue that (it's for another day)... But even for things like Freedom of Speech or of the Press, it only goes so far. There are limits, as you can't approach a print company (say, Hallmark) and expect to be granted printing rights for a book for free. Or you could practice a religion without any worries, but if your religion, for arguments sake, included cannibalism, then it's not going to be pretty.
My point is, even if you're guaranteed a constitutional right, you have obligations to meet (whether it would be age, criminal background, etc) before that right is granted to you. And you can certainly lose that right if you become a convicted felon or even if you're in the military... Having it in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean anyone is given and guaranteed that right. In the sense that something like the Right to Assemble can be taken away in martial law or you have to be of certain age to own a gun, it is more a privilige than a right...
I have the same concerns over gun safety and training as mentioned here. That's my biggest beef with "gun control/non-control"... Some of the ideas listed here are excellent for educating the public about gun safety and proper use, but the problem is getting them passed without the feeling that they're going to prevent law abiding people from getting a gun.
MichiganMan
Enlightened
Tomas, we have statutory restrictions on CCW here too, two that just drive me up the wall; Hospitals and Day Care Centers. Hospitals?!?! What the heck is that about? Has there been a rash of operating room shootings no one told me about? I know the wait can be frustrating but jeez. This is a solution to a problem I never heard of.
I certainly understand the motivation of the Day Care restriction, but its logic doesn't survive 30 seconds of critical examination. Obviously we never want another tragic massacre at a day care center, but is a law forbidding someone from carrying a weapon into one really going to stop someone that's already worked around that little "Murder 1st Degree" restriction?
So the restriction is completely ineffective at addressing the circumstances for which it was written. But I would argue that it short-sightedly increases the risk of a tragedy. Think about it. If I carry, and I do as an occasional part of my job, and I stop to pick up my kids from day care, upon arrival in the parking lot I have to take my belt holster off, stash it under the seat and leave it unattended in my car (locked of course) Some don't carry their weapons in holsters (ie. deep carry weapons designed for pockets) and therefore handle the firearms directly.
Anyone familiar with firearms will tell you a gun is most dangerous when its being handled. (duh) That's when all accidental shootings occur. On the other hand, outside of a gun safe, the weapon is most safe if left unmolested in a holster on its authorized carrier. Because of the restriction, weapons are unnecessarily handled and left unattended (albeit, hopefully secured) God knows how many times a year thereby increasing the chances of an accidental discharge, and for no purpose since as I explained above the persons that are bothering to disarm before entry are the ones trying to obey the law including that one against murder.
And God forbid I have my shoulder holster and have to partially exit my car to remove my coat first, thereby scaring the bejeepers out of the soccer mom in the next car who immediately has my local police chief rushing to the scene to checkout "This man with a gun at the day care center!! Please Hurry!!"
I certainly understand the motivation of the Day Care restriction, but its logic doesn't survive 30 seconds of critical examination. Obviously we never want another tragic massacre at a day care center, but is a law forbidding someone from carrying a weapon into one really going to stop someone that's already worked around that little "Murder 1st Degree" restriction?
So the restriction is completely ineffective at addressing the circumstances for which it was written. But I would argue that it short-sightedly increases the risk of a tragedy. Think about it. If I carry, and I do as an occasional part of my job, and I stop to pick up my kids from day care, upon arrival in the parking lot I have to take my belt holster off, stash it under the seat and leave it unattended in my car (locked of course) Some don't carry their weapons in holsters (ie. deep carry weapons designed for pockets) and therefore handle the firearms directly.
Anyone familiar with firearms will tell you a gun is most dangerous when its being handled. (duh) That's when all accidental shootings occur. On the other hand, outside of a gun safe, the weapon is most safe if left unmolested in a holster on its authorized carrier. Because of the restriction, weapons are unnecessarily handled and left unattended (albeit, hopefully secured) God knows how many times a year thereby increasing the chances of an accidental discharge, and for no purpose since as I explained above the persons that are bothering to disarm before entry are the ones trying to obey the law including that one against murder.
And God forbid I have my shoulder holster and have to partially exit my car to remove my coat first, thereby scaring the bejeepers out of the soccer mom in the next car who immediately has my local police chief rushing to the scene to checkout "This man with a gun at the day care center!! Please Hurry!!"
MichiganMan
Enlightened
[ QUOTE ]
ewick said:
MichiganMan,
Amendment, but it makes me wonder about the age requirement as well. If every American has RKBA, including children, how can the sales of firearms/ammunition to children be restricted?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ewick, good question. The answer is that children are not full citizens until they reach adulthood (an age which seems to move a bit) Notice the young'uns lack all sort of basic rights that adults enjoy, they have no right to peaceably assemble, speak, be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, heck, even own any property if the adults to whom they're entrusted don't authorize it. Anything "owned" by a child is actualy the legal property (and responsibility) of the child's guardian.
If my 6 year old daughter presented herself to the police declaring that I forceably held her prisoner in her room last night because she exercised her freedom of speech by calling her brother a butthead they'd promptly return her home and chastise me for letting her wander unsupervised. If I tried the same thing when she's 20, I'd be prosecuted.
I'm not telling her that though...
ewick said:
MichiganMan,
Amendment, but it makes me wonder about the age requirement as well. If every American has RKBA, including children, how can the sales of firearms/ammunition to children be restricted?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ewick, good question. The answer is that children are not full citizens until they reach adulthood (an age which seems to move a bit) Notice the young'uns lack all sort of basic rights that adults enjoy, they have no right to peaceably assemble, speak, be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, heck, even own any property if the adults to whom they're entrusted don't authorize it. Anything "owned" by a child is actualy the legal property (and responsibility) of the child's guardian.
If my 6 year old daughter presented herself to the police declaring that I forceably held her prisoner in her room last night because she exercised her freedom of speech by calling her brother a butthead they'd promptly return her home and chastise me for letting her wander unsupervised. If I tried the same thing when she's 20, I'd be prosecuted.
I'm not telling her that though...
DieselDave
Super Moderator,
I love this thread it's refreshing, we all agree for a change. It is fairly safe to say, taking guns away guns from CPF members could be hazardous to your health. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
Tomas
Banned
It wouldn't happen easily, Dave. Nope. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon8.gif
I pity the first wave to try it ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
I pity the first wave to try it ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
brightnorm
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 7,160
[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
I love this thread it's refreshing, we all agree for a change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Including at least one non-conservative!
Brightnorm
DieselDave said:
I love this thread it's refreshing, we all agree for a change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Including at least one non-conservative!
Brightnorm
tsg68
Flashlight Enthusiast
Hell Tom, the 2nd is being nibbled to death, no grand overtures yet just a small piece of your rights here and a small piece there. I can't stand to look at television anymore, the media just continually tries to frighten Americans into surrendering their rights. I just saw a spot for the 10 o'clock news warning of the "new threats against air travel this summer and how they affect you." Of course the forces of terrorism have been attempting to get at us since the late sixties and their successes have been few given the time elapsed. I once heard a great comment that stated that in order to be effective in protection, a security force had to be accurate 100% of the time while the various forces that can upset it, only need to succeed once to achieve their ends, extremely tough odds if you think about it. I don't kid myself anymore about who is responsible for my safety, ME, and I'll glady takes me own chances. My wife feels the same.
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
JonSidneyB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Childeren...hummm, when I was growing up..we were shooting by 6 or 8 years old...I never heard of an accidental discarge until I moved north
Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
I'm not sure if private businesses, especially public places like malls can ban firearms possesion in Washington. It's never gone to court. Some states, such as Virginia, specifically state that a business the wants to ban guns on the premises, must have a sign at every entrance. Most malls do, but they forget about the stores ith outside entrances. I actually hada couple of cops give me funny looks once, beacause I was carrying in a hipsack that was pretty obvious, since it was in common use by many of the local LEO's. The might have thought I was one too. Washington state, has no mention of that. Of course, I have no wish to be the test case on this matter.
turbodog
Flashaholic
Permit needed for concealed carry.
Unconcealed is not problem though, and a lot more likely to deter attempts to bother you.
You should have seen the looks I got in McDonald's one night with my .40 in my back pocket.
Unconcealed is not problem though, and a lot more likely to deter attempts to bother you.
You should have seen the looks I got in McDonald's one night with my .40 in my back pocket.
In Texas we have various law enforcement groups that wear different clothing other than uniforms. I was in a line in a fast food restaurant one day and noticed that the guy behind me was wearing jeans and a casual shirt, and a Glock on his belt. I of course assumed that he was an officer, and later noticed a badge on his belt. I don't think anyone else in the line even noticed the Glock much less the badge. When we left I saw his marked car (Constable) in the parking lot.
lymph
Enlightened
I can hardly imagine the response open carry would bring about here in Seattle.
The concealed carry laws are pretty good, though, and I almost never see a place posted "no guns".
The concealed carry laws are pretty good, though, and I almost never see a place posted "no guns".
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Is the 796 bulb a safe application for a reverse light?
- Latest: Hamilton Felix
-
-
-
-
-
-
