Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

That was great Glen. Also, when you are hunting, you can only have 3 slugs in a shot gun when hunting. If you do,, you are in trouble...

And, I love how to supreme court can just assume that. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense....

---

Thanks
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


In the past the line in the 2nd amendment "A well Regulated Militia" was used by the Left to say that it did not pertain to Private Citizens but the Supreme Court finally ruled in 2008 that it was the intent of the Bill of Rights to mean Private Citizens...

here is more

2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

It really depends on the State, you have to understand that each State can enact certain laws, much like each Country can in other parts of the world...

Mostly the places with the Highest crime rates have the strictest laws in the US, and before you say it, No the laws came first :)

To carry a concealed weapon in general in most places you have to have a Firearms safety course and an FBI background check that usually takes 30 days.. Each state and even each County Sheriff in each state can adjust those laws and requirements.. Since the Supreme court decision that stated the 2nd amendment did mean a private citizen, many places that were in the past "Proof to Carry" now are "Must Issue"... The difference is before you had to have a reason to get a CCW now they have to issue unless there is a reason...

To hunt in most states takes a Safety Class also, and many of the popular hunting states have pretty strict laws.. Most states have arms limitations also to hunt, here in Idaho and in Colorado you could not use an AR-15 for big game, even if you wanted to, and if yer hunting small game with it most States have a 5 shot max rule for the Mags, not that you can have 5 rnds in a 20/30 rnd mag, you have to have a special 5 rnd Mag to hunt...

What I am eluding to is there are so many freaking gun laws in the US it is mind boggling, at the Columbine shooting IIRC they broke almost 30 gun laws before a trigger was pulled...
This is why so many of us are against more laws, and why we say that they do not stop anyone but those that obey the laws anyway...

Unless you release the Nanobots that can destroy all guns at the same time, any more laws are useless...


Edit: For hunting even the rounds that you are shooting are covered by laws, ie: most states require expanding bullets, of a certain minimum muzzle velocity or perhaps No Lead for Water Fowl...

---

So I'm piping up again here for a moment.....Glen is right. We have enough laws and they need to be enforced.The reason anymore that people are so dangerous with guns or bombs or anything else for that matter is because of our society breakdown. Especially but not all inclusive in big urban areas where people, like hot little molecules are work obsessed or forced to work more hours to afford to live and spend little time with their Kids/family. Where schools are lax in or hand tied in making a bad behaver accountable because politics and lawmakers say they aren't allowed. When (at least in our country) we were at a time when the family unit existed and we punished a child for misbehaving without repricussions from the feelgood crowd and were able to monitor the growth and development of our kids.A time when law enforcement could do it's job without lobbiers crying fowl and Nazi at every turn. A time when media and cell phones didn't influence our emotions and sway our common sense. A time when acheivement was rewarded instead of handouts and a gold star on the forehead for everybody just because. When we thought for ourselves and kept a cohesive family unity with values and a good sense of community..that's when we had less problems with violence of any kind and less herd mentality want for our government to take over everything in our lives and regulate the snot out of us. At least for us here in the States,that was our hallmark ...being of a independant self governing pioneer spirit and mindset. Taking guns away here isn't going to solve anything because guns are not the problem period...it's the modern lunacy that we live in and especially but again not all inclusive to our urban centers. Glens right...poeple who live in the more rural areas tend to be a little more grounded because thay have more space and time to focus on family and community...that's why we refer to the "Rat Race" here in America. Most big city dwellers(NOT ALL) are more concerned with their Latte's and facebook and would rather have everything taken care of for them so they can get on with their selfism. But as a society overall here in the states we need to get back to grassroots instead of progressing forward into this let the robot take care of the kids mentality.....that would be truly progressing forward......IMHO ! Now....about that Boar sausage...think I got some Kielbasa in the fridge somewhere hmmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Thanks
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


In the past the line in the 2nd amendmant "A well Regulated Militia" was used by the Left to say that it did not pertain to Private Citizens but the Supreme Court finally ruled in 2008 that it was the intent of the Bill of Rights to mean Private Citizens...

here is more

2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw

---

What I think the problem is, the left refuses(IMO) to realize when that was written. It was written when there wasn't a perfectly setup military, so it was the peoples decision and right to protect the country. The assume the "Militia" is talking about the military, not the people, in which it was intended to be referring to. But, I digress....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

Interesting to read the comments on what mandatory training is required in several different countries. I would add that Canada is not much different either. That is to say just a very basic course and nothing further. No, I would not rely on any individual to voluntarily go to the extra effort required, above those very basic courses, to truly become very proficient with all aspects of gun handling. That probably explains why we have quite a few hunters that I would never go into the bush with and can't hit a bull in the butt with a barn door at the best of times. Some do go to the effort but most don't. Sad really.

Bob

---

Bob where in Canada do YOU live?? Not that it should matter being its a federal thing.

When I let my FAC expire, to update it, I had to take a two day course and provide more information than I ever did to get my passport! Plus I had two (or was it three) phone interviews on the issue from police forces!! Moreover - they asked about my mental health.

That was in Ontario! And only for a long-gun! Try getting a hand-gun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donv

I find it funny to use speed regulation as an example of gun laws. I remember in 1979, they passed a law that forced auto makers to sell cars, or motorcycles, with speedometers that only went up to 85 mph. They also had the magic "55" highlighted in some way. In 1981, they realized it was doing no good. Laws only work for those who recognize them and heed their rule. You will never stop a bad person from doing others harm if that is what they want. Where there's a will, there's a way, even if the will is ill. You can pass all the laws you want, the only ones you will stop are the law abiding people. You can hope that laws will make it harder to obtain guns or ammo, or minimize their ability to do harm. Do I have an answer, no. Do you, no. But we do have ideas, and if we can exchange ideas, leaving out emotion, we can get closer to making things better. This board is unique, it brings together views from a World wide stage.

I have guns. From the opinions of some around here, I have too much ammo. I abide by the rules of law. The only people who should worry about me, are those who would come here with intent to do me or my family harm. And should that time ever come, I don't want to be hindered in my efforts to defend my right to live by some dumb ass law that the bad guy coming to hurt me is ignoring! Is there ANY reason for me to own an AR-15 with two 30 round clips taped together? Many of you would say, no. But, what about the 5 gang bangers that are sent on a hit and get my address by mistake. Far fetched, sure. Improbable, sure. Impossible, no. Don't limit my ability to do everything in my power to protect myself.

I'm getting too wound up, it's lunch time. I need to go eat and get away from this board for a while.

I found some meat in the freezer, not sure what it is, Elk, maybe. Or I could go with some wild boar sausage over rice? Anyway, catch ya later, donv

---

The DHS recently defined a potential terrorist as someone that owns more than a couple of guns, keeps ammo in airtight containers, and stores more than 2 weeks of food. How many terrorists are on this site?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANelson

I think the correct thing to do, so as not to make more laws being unenforced is to make crimes commited with guns carry much stiffer penalties. Double or more for sentences if the criminal HAS a gun, possibly even up to life in the event of injury.

That way (life sentences) people who want guns but not to hurt anyone aren't punished for the actions someone else took, and people who misuse guns won't do it again.

I know this wouldn't do anything for the victims, but I do know that "Bad cases make bad law."
This isn't because "Gun-Nuts" don't care about anyone's safety, or because "Pacifistic Gun Takers" want people to be dis-armed and unhappy. It's because people are people, and such events make us think with their guts instead of our heads.

Just rambling thoughts brought into my head by this thread, please feel free to ignore if you choose.

---

This is already federal law.

Indiana is one state that does not have mandatory training requirements for a LTCH (License to Carry Handgun). Here you can carry fully visible (OC) or concealed (CC). Most of the same folks who originally lobbied for the license, including myself, continue to lobby against any mandatory requirements. It is seen here as a method that could be used to deny a license by making the requirements impossible to meet. As thebigspendur has said, training is also no guarantee of ability.

The only thing I lobby for now is inclusion of a handout with each permit stating locations that are still illegal for carry, even for a license holder. Like schools, licensed day care, secured airport areas, etc... Of course, these "gun-free zones" make it much easier for a nut case to find a safe area chock full of potential victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

@Sheajohnw

This is what is actually hard for most to understand if you take the urban blight out of the Crime Stats for the US, I am quite sure that we would be at or below the top five Countries in the world for Gun crime ...

Hmmmm I wonder if that stat is out there

---

It's out there, i.e. one place is the pdf I linked to earlier ( Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths ). It basically has stats that say that gangs are responsible for between 48% to 90% of all violent crime. Of that crime, 94.4% gang murders are committed with guns. To further skew homicide rates, they almost always include justified self-defense shootings, police action shootings, suicides, etc... I don't consider the first 2 to be gun crimes, the third will depend on your personal religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So if I am understanding the argument correctly, if I point a gun at your head, and you point a gun at mine, both you and I can rest easy in perfect safety from each other? lol!

So how does that logic translate to the movie going public in the US? Should the projectionist room have a machine gun post mounted next to the projector? Should ushers have a big iron on their hips? Should the purchase of a large popcorn come with a free sawn-off shotgun? Would you feel safer then?

There is another way of course: if I don't point a gun at your head, and you don't point a gun at mine, both you and I can rest easy in perfect safety from one another! Just because something is hard to do, doesn't make it impossible to do. In fact, it is my understanding that you do already have gun control at certain levels: high schools, airplanes, jails. If you can implement and enforce it under some situations, why not under all?

Don't get me wrong, I am a realist. I know the US will never implement gun control. In fact, I am pretty sure we all know that. However, I merely wish to point out that your arguments hold no water with me as I live a quite peaceful life in a country with gun control laws.

James.

---

Obama is trying to do just that. He has agreed to a UN law that limits all our firearms and forces us to register all of them. The law is null if the Senate votes it down, but Reed will never bring it up for a vote. So the law is in force until it is voted on. This is an Obama end run around the law and most people don't know it is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

What I think the problem is, the left refuses(IMO) to realize when that was written. It was written when there wasn't a perfectly setup military, so it was the peoples decision and right to protect the country. The assume the "Militia" is talking about the military, not the people, in which it was intended to be referring to. But, I digress....

---

Parker --
You're partially correct. It's inclusion in the Bill of Rights rests largely upon an historical basis, dating to the British policy of making the possession of arms a crime prior to the War of American Rebellion. Thus, the practice of confiscation of arms became routine. When the Union was formed, however, the nation's leaders realized that each State, to insure its own security, required a well-regulated militia consisting of as many of its able-bodied male citizens as any emergency might require. In order to have a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms was essential.
It is important to note, however,that the provisions of the 2nd Amendment apply only to the National Gov't. The States can, and do, regulate the possession of arms. In essence, the 2nd Amendment provides for the individual States to maintain their own militias -- today's National Guard. That is the original intent: to allow the individual States to arm their own militias. However, through tradition and subsequent laws, private ownership of arms has become the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Yes. It's training, preparation and warrior mindset. If one is unwilling to train and properly prepare for a worst case scenario, then one should not be armed. Period.

---

Texas classes for concealed carry include crisis training and how to defuse a confrontation without violence. This is one reason Texas doesn't recognize the license from every state.