Ban Guns, CHL, Open Carry, Free Carry for All

[Doug.38PR]

This is a poll to see to what extent people believe or, in my view, understand the concept behind the right that the Second Amendment (that's the Constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights that preserves the right to keep AND bear arms for those of you who grew up on MTV ) protects (not gives).

Do you think we ought to have:

1) Ban guns all together with only police carrying
2) Concealed Handgun Licenses to limited people of the states selection
3) Open Carry Licenses to limited people of states selection
4) Options 2 and 3 together at the carrier's choice.
5) Free gun ownership and carry for anyone who passes a government background check
6) Free gun ownership and carry to anyone who wants to buy a gun without any kind of background check (meaning EX convicts, non citizens, people who have served time for whatever reason have a right to carry too. People are convicted and sentenced based on the crimes they commit and not on breaking crime prevention laws.)

 

[rhgunguy]

I would have to vote for #5. The whole "no background check" thing is a little scary. Guns don't kill people, people do. But I would feel a little better knowing that people with a predeliction for violence would have a harder time(if you try hard enough, regardless of the law, you can get a gun) possesing a gun.

Violent felons (rape, attempted murder, drug dealers...), those with a history of mental instability and drug addicts make my short list of inelligeables.

 

[BerettaCougar]

I voted for the unlimited rights of gun ownership/use of the American citizen.

Basically if someone is a free American, with no mental illness (mental illness that renders the person unsafe...) or other illness that will limit their ability to use the firearm safely (blind) then they should have the right to defend their life, family, property.

Even people who have previous arrest records, think about it... if the person is so much of a threat to the public, and having that person live life without a legal route as to purchasing a firearm is the smart way of handeling things, then we should also ban that person from owning knives, or blunt objects like baseball bats, or maybe even ban them from making a fist...since all can be used as weapons...

just my 2.

 

[Redworm]

I'd go for five but then again not only can a background check be too restrictive but it can be far too lax. Plus it doesn't raise the issue of registration or ballistic fingerprinting.

then we should also ban that person from owning knives, or blunt objects like baseball bats, or maybe even ban them from making a fist...since all can be used as weapons...

All can be used as weapons but none as easily, effectively, and efficiently as a gun.

 

[WillBrayjr]

I voted #6 Think about it, there are plenty of things out there that are just as dangerous if not more so than a bullet. Arrows, blades, chainsaws, hammers nailguns and the list goes on. I don't see any background checks for those items. The only thing you need to buy a non firearm is a form of ID stating that you're over the age of 18

 

[invention_45]

While there are a lot of uncontrolled dangerous things out there, why aren't you carrying them instead of a gun? I already know. None is as concealable and effective at a distance.

The idea that criminals would get guns somehow even if they fail the CHL qualification is only partly true. There are some (actually, a lot) of people out there who are unstable. Being impulsive is a big part of this instability. I know this because I know some of them. Having a barrier is sometimes enough to keep guns out of the hands of someone whose next impulsive decision after buying a gun might be the decision to shoot you because you looked at him wrong.

Remember the MX missile scheme under Jimmy Carter? Say what you will about him, but that was a good concept. We have a few MIRVed missiles that are shuttled from silo to silo. Since there's no way to know which silo contains a missile, the Soviets would have had to build to hit all silos. We spend less on land-based missiles. They spend more. On a first strike, they either use all their missiles to kill empty silos or they take their chances they'll hit the right ones. If they're wrong, they're toast. The only problem with that scheme was they could have done the same thing.

That's what CHL gets you. The shell game. Rob that guy? Is he armed? Who knows? Concealed carry gives some protection to you even if you are not armed. Open carry might make you a target.

I think the way we have it here in FL has been thought over pretty carefully, and I like what we have.

 

[Trip20]

I voted #6.

Background checks are useless IMO.

1) They do not determine whether or not someone will commit a crime with a firearm.

2) They do not keep criminals from carrying (they are criminals, see).

3) They keep law-abiding citizens from carrying, who may have done something wrong in their past. I say "law-abiding" because if the citizens were not "law-abiding", they would be part of #2 above.

4) They're only a source of revenue, and a "feel good" measure!

 

[WillBrayjr]

Why would you need something effective at a distance as well? Most self-defense scenarios at arm's length. A knife and Asp baton are very effective at arm's length.

 

[invention_45]

The idea is to stop the attacker BEFORE he slices you up, not after. I've heard that the conservative estimate is that a knife-wielding attacker is an imminent threat at 21 feet away. If you're not the fastest shot or the quickest runner in the world, reality says it's about 70 feet away. Don't believe that? Take a course some time where they simulate an attacker running toward you.

A handgun is a very clever weapon. It has an unmatched combination of portability, stopping power, simplicity (and thus reliability) and user safety, and the ability to be used effectively BEFORE you are incapacitated.

 

[WillBrayjr]

If I could carry a gun, I would in a heart beat. A badguy sees a victim with a gun and what does he do? 99% of the time the badguy high tails it away from his intended victim. If I see someone running towards me and I know that his/her intentions are not good, I'm going to get whatever I can use as a weapon and I'm going to charge him/her with intent to kill. Guns will deter badguys most of the time.

 

[tyme]

I would have to vote for #5. The whole "no background check" thing is a little scary.

The whole "letting violent criminals out on parole because of overcrowding" (or because we have a "compassionate" judicial system) is a little scary, too. If they want guns, they can get them without a background check right now. If a jury decides that the punishment for a crime should be 15 years, the criminal should do 15 years, not 2, not 5.

 

[CALNRA]

any type of government-sanctioned checks/regulations scares me and unforunately these day and age we have to live with it just to buy a handgun(rifles in some places). COme on, with the commie politicians in Washington the infamous form 4437(I think) from Red Dawn isn't far behind.

 

[steelheart]

I voted for the last choice - "free ownership and carry for all." This is essentially what they have in Vermont and it flat out works there. No reason it would not work in the other 49 states.

Also, if you read the Second Amendment, this was the intent of The Founders.

 

[Mr. James]

I realize it's early yet

But I cannot begin to express my dismay that here, at TFL of all places, more than half of us think we should ask permission before exercising a God-given right.

 

[O6nop]

It was between #2 and #5

It was between #2 and #5, I chose 5 but I'm not sure about the "free" part. For one, anyone carrying a handgun should be properly taught safety and accuracy, this should be required and, of course, the instructor should be compensated. The license is just revenue for the state, pros and cons I'm sure about that. Also, a background check should be in force. Even though 'anybody' can get a gun, they should be punished if they are carrying illegally. And that crime should be stiff.

 

[Trip20]

Even though 'anybody' can get a gun, they should be punished if they are carrying illegally. And that crime should be stiff.

Wow. Punished if they are carrying illegally huh? Which, of course means you don't have the state's blessing - nothing more. So, you should be punished in a "stiff" manner if you choose to protect your life with out the blessing of the state? Meaning, you don't have the right to protect yourself unless the state agrees?

That is absolutely disgusting. Go sit in the corner, your punished.

 

[Hugh Damright]

If you are asking me what I think the gun laws should be in my region, I would lean towards #6. But if you are asking me to what extent the individual RKBA is protected by the Second Amendment, I'd have to choose "none of the above".

 

[O6nop]

Wow. Punished if they are carrying illegally huh? Which, of course means you don't have the state's blessing - nothing more. So, you should be punished in a "stiff" manner if you choose to protect your life with out the blessing of the state? Meaning, you don't have the right to protect yourself unless the state agrees?

That is absolutely disgusting. Go sit in the corner, your punished.

Well, apparently I put myself in a corner, but yes, what is a state's blessing but a "law"? If gun laws are broken, and I'm not saying what those laws should or shouldn't be, then there should be punishment. I think the intention of the second amendment is for 'peacable' citizens to keep and bear arms according to some of the debates during the creation of the Bill of Rights' second Amendment, although it wasn't specified. I interpret that as educated, trained and well disciplined in the ownership of weapons for the purpose of safe recreation and self defense.

Sorry, I'm new to the whole concept, I'm just learning about it all and exercising my first. My opinions are subject to amending as well. For now, I state how I feel.

 

[Trip20]

I prefer to look at this subject above and beyond the state or federal government (i.e., law)... as in all men are created equal, and no other man (or organization made of the same) should be able to dictate to me whether or not I can able to protect myself with the most affective tools available. No, this does not mean we should all have an nuclear silo in our back yard.

Especially when we carry to protect ourselves from those with no regard for the law. Therefore the law mainly hinders those who are law-abiding citizens, whilst the "bad guys" continue their assault, free and clear of restrictions.

Touchy subject - all are entitled to their opinion. No hard feelings on this end.

 

[O6nop]

No, this does not mean we should all have an nuclear silo in our back yard.

I agree, obviously, but that is an extreme. should there be a line drawn... fully automatic, armored piercing, sharp sticks....?
We all need to do our part to ensure that our lawmakers make the laws that suit the majority and our times. Easier said than done. I want to be law abiding and I will be as long as my rights aren't violated, and whether I would act upon that or how, depends on a lot of things.

Especially when we carry to protect ourselves from those with no regard for the law. Therefore the law mainly hinders those who are law-abiding citizens, whilst the "bad guys" continue their assault, free and clear of restrictions.

Then, there are the people that don't want to carry a gun and 'want' the government/law enforcement to protect them. And, those that 'want' to carry a gun but use it like they see on TV or the movies. Education is the important part to me. What classes I've taken on my journey to CHL are extremely beneficial and I hope to continue educating myself from now until I can't think anymore. Maybe only a series of classes are all that should be required is a class of some sort.