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

[Trip20]

We all need to do our part to ensure that our lawmakers make the laws that suit the majority and our times.

This is absolutely true. But I part with you when this philosophy is applied to basic human rights: self-protection, free speech, religion, et cetera. The majority should not be able to encroach on my basic human rights given to me by my creator. It's either a free society, or not. It's not a "cake-and-eat-it-too" topic.

Then, there are the people that don't want to carry a gun and 'want' the government/law enforcement to protect them.

I don't much care about these people - especially when they don't stop to consider SCOTUS' ruling regarding law enforcement's duty (or lack there of) to protect the citizens. Meaning, you do not have a right to be protected by the police. If you have no guarantee that the government or police will protect you... then to whom do you turn?

Beyond all of the above, this group is considered sheep in my opinion. Mindless cattle whose only benefit is the tax dollars they provide, same as sheep provide wool and lamb chops.

And, those that 'want' to carry a gun but use it like they see on TV or the movies.

I don't much care about this group either. It sounds neat, but it's not realistic. You can't agree that it's virtuous to restrict the rights of others because of an infinitesimal percentage of morons. Let’s face it; in all the states that allow concealed carry... how often do issues arise from the morons who want to carry "like they see on tv"? Exactly.

When you begin to place restrictions on a basic human right, eventually you get to the point where the right no longer exists due to the process you must follow to exercise the same.

Edit: You should take my posts with a grain of salt. I live in a state who's gun owners just lost a battle for concealed carry. It's illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin. Due to this, I may be a little testy, and/or my opinions considered skewed or extreme. Of couse, I don't believe they are, but I'm biased

 

[BerettaCougar]

Trip, your views are NOT extreme, I agree with you 110%

Gun owners/carriers who want government intervention in the RKBA are not allies of the freedom loving American, just less of an enemy.

 

[Redworm]

BC: you believe there should be no government intervention at all?

What about a convicted rapist or murderer that has been let out on parole? Granted neither should see the light of day in the first place but we know that they do; should they still be allowed to carry?

What about people with mental instabilities or neurological diseases that affect motor function and decision making?

What about children? Or are twelve year olds not considered part of "the people"?

It's akin to believing that there should be no government intervention on the first amendment either. In which case it wouldn't be a crime to yell fire in a croweded theater nor would it be a crime to reveal the identities of undercover CIA operatives....oh wait. Without government intervention into freedom of religion then people practicing religions that demand unwilling human sacrifice could do whatever they want.

With rights come responsibility. To think that simply arming everyone and letting the problems sort themselves out will improve the situation ignores some very basic principles of psychology and sociology.

 

[Trip20]

Rapists, murderers, and children -- the inveterate red herring.

What about a convicted rapist...

Rapists: I don't mind if a convicted rapist owns a firearm once his/her sentence and parole punishments are fully served. All of his/her rights should be returned. All of them. I care more about a rapist having access to Internet porn, than I do he/she having access to a 1911 - but I wouldn't restrict that either.

...or murderer...

Murderer: Do you really believe a murderer will not commit murder again because there's a background check at the local Gander Mountain? If you truely believe a background check is stopping this murderer from killing again, you live in a dream world. I don’t know what else to say.

What about children? Or are twelve year olds not considered part of "the people"?

12 yr olds: They're under the protection of their parents at this age. Upon reaching 18 yrs old they should be allowed to purchase and carry. The current 21 yr old restriction is disgusting. I'm sure you've heard the comment that an 18 yr old can die for his country carrying an automatic weapon, yet can't carry a pistol back in the states. There is something wrong here.

With rights come responsibility.

Exactly. The problem is that the ______ (insert entity) does not believe the serfs are responsible enough to be entrusted with self-protection using the most effective tool. That is absurd.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I voted #6. I think if more regular citizens could carry firearms, there would be less to worry about from criminals, who often times manage to get illegal arms anyway. I think firearms safety courses would still be popular in a freer environment.

 

[Doug.38PR]

I'm sure you've heard the comment that an 18 yr old can die for his country carrying an automatic weapon, yet can't carry a pistol back in the states. There is something wrong here.

you know, I never even thought of that. I knew those two facts as two separate facts but never associated the two.

You're right that is absurd.

 

[MeekAndMild]

I voted number six.

The laws of supply and demand are natural laws and nature will fill a vacuum. A good example is Great Britain where an enterprising thug could make a small fortune selling homemade brass knuckles and iron-pipe shotguns.

I think that prohibition laws in anything approaching a free society tend to drive up prices, fund bootlegging and bankroll organized crime. The rise of Mexican mafia influence in pseudoephedrine smuggling in response to recent over the counter sudafed registration is a good example. This shows the process where such laws cause the replacement of easily-caught amateurs with tough and dedicated professional criminals.

 

[axslingerW]

I'm happy with the way it is here, just wish the process was faster. I don't mind the permits etc. But I passed the background check for a CCW I wish the gun store could look it up or call someone and let me take my new pistol home the same day. bg's don't have to go through the crap and red tape that I do.

 

[Real Gun]

I would vote for the greatest level of freedom that includes mandatory safety and gun law training, including a test. Competent marksmanship wouldn't hurt either. All that would be solved if militia training was mandatory, so competence with and proper regard for guns could be taken for granted like it was over 200 years ago.

 

[4V50 Gary]

I voted for #5 instead of #6. Density of felons is too high in my city and these people need rehabilitation through reincarnation. Giving them a gun is asking for society to be victimized.

 

[O6nop]

I'm sure you've heard the comment that an 18 yr old can die for his country carrying an automatic weapon, yet can't carry a pistol back in the states. There is something wrong here.

This brings me back to education and responsibility in handling firearms. A soldier is trained to handle a weapon AND he is under the care and orders of his superiors and the military. An 18 year old in the states is not necessarily that well trained unless he was in the service, but at 18 he is probably still in the service and the military may not want them out carrying because they are still being molded to the military life.

Just my opinion... I'm not ex-military so that may not count for anything...

 

[IndianaDean]

Indoctrine mandatory firearms training into school curriculums. Make it a requirement for both boys and girls.

 

[wayneinFL]

I voted for #5 instead of #6. Density of felons is too high in my city and these people need rehabilitation through reincarnation. Giving them a gun is asking for society to be victimized.

Felons? They need to be in prison. Or the reincarnation thing. Let's have more of that. Then those that are left in society must be good people, and should be trusted with guns.

 

[Redworm]

Rapists: I don't mind if a convicted rapist owns a firearm once his/her sentence and parole punishments are fully served. All of his/her rights should be returned. All of them. I care more about a rapist having access to Internet porn, than I do he/she having access to a 1911 - but I wouldn't restrict that either.

I'd rather a convicted rapist never see the light of day again but that's unlikely to happen. I don't believe even one who's served his full sentence should ever have all his rights restored because he can never truly "pay his debt". Rape is something very few men can comprehend; the emotional scarring it leaves on a woman is beyond anything you or I have been though (unless you were a POW in a country that doesn't like us, in which case I recind my previous statement). A rapist willingly takes a woman's rights away so why should he ever have them back?

Murderer: Do you really believe a murderer will not commit murder again because there's a background check at the local Gander Mountain? If you truely believe a background check is stopping this murderer from killing again, you live in a dream world. I don’t know what else to say.

But it does make it more difficult. It makes him have to find one of his ex-con buddies to hook him up or have to steal one and risk getting caught in both cases rather than simply walking into a store.

If you truly believe that preventing a convicted and paroled murder from buying a gun like you and I in no way affects his ability to commit a crime, you must live in the same dream world that I do.

12 yr olds: They're under the protection of their parents at this age. Upon reaching 18 yrs old they should be allowed to purchase and carry. The current 21 yr old restriction is disgusting. I'm sure you've heard the comment that an 18 yr old can die for his country carrying an automatic weapon, yet can't carry a pistol back in the states. There is something wrong here.

Ah but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it state that the right to bear arms does not apply to those under the protection of their parents. Nowhere does it state that people under 18 are not guaranteed the same freedom of speech, religion, and right to speedy trail. So then why are twelve year olds not allowed to purchase firearms? Because they're not responsible enough. Thus we set restrictions of responsibility on those rights protected by the Constitution.

As to the age restriction, I agree. It's as ridiculous as the fact that an 18 year old can be sent to kill and possibly die yet cannot legally have a beer with his unit if he makes it home.

Exactly. The problem is that the ______ (insert entity) does not believe the serfs are responsible enough to be entrusted with self-protection using the most effective tool. That is absurd.

I agree but restrictions must be set at some level. Unrestricted access to any and all forms of weaponry would end the human race. Chemical and biological weapons are considered "arms" as much as any firearm is yet it's certainly not a good idea to allow people to walk around with vials of anthrax or sarin gas. Nor is it a good idea to give a gun to someone who is mentally unstable or to someone who has repeatedly been convicted of violent crimes.

 

[invention_45]

"I care more about a rapist having access to Internet porn, than I do he/she having access to a 1911 - but I wouldn't restrict that either."

Everything I've ever read about rape says it's about control, not sex. Porn doesn't cause rape.

Because I'd survive being whacked with a rolled up porn magazine better than being shot with a 1911, I think he'd have less control over me if he were armed with the former than if he were armed with the latter.

I suppose that it's possible to be so afraid of porn that you feel differently.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

I didn't vote because you didn't offer "none of the above". I think there should be a condition for convicted felons. They should be required to jump through a few extra hoops to get their RKBA back.

Bob

 

[BerettaCougar]

What extra hoops?
When a man is FREED from jail, he is FREED from jail.

 

[Redworm]

What extra hoops?
When a man is FREED from jail, he is FREED from jail.

While I agree, there are so many cases in which a man shouldn't be freed from jail in the first place.

 

[MeekAndMild]

4V50 Gary I often agree with you but beg to differ this time. The answer is still #6. I think one commonly accepted problem with background checks is that they don't prevent thugs from obtaining weapons. But another problem we don't talk about is that for many years in too many coutries in the world a 'background check' included the informal assessment of race, family purity and worth to 'TPTB'.

Let me use an example. One of my aquaintances is an avid shooter and longtime member of the NRA. He is an aerospace engineer and spent a couple of years on a job in southern Italy. While he was there he decided he wanted to buy a nice Italian pistol, more of a work of art than an actual shooter. Well he went through all the paperwork and was close to getting approval when he reached the last step of the process, the police running his background and qualifications past the local Mafia boss. He was disapproved.

Now this sounds like just another one of Meek's stories and I don't have any way of proving it actually happened like that except I trust my friend's truthfullness and his ability to read the situation. One doesn't become a senior project engineer without some pretty good knowledge of people as well as machinery. So I believe it.

The point is perhaps better phrased in rhetorical questions. How does stopping my grandmother (who doesn't have a birth cirtificate, driver's license nor union card to prove her identity) from buying guns stop your felon from stealing, making or buying a gun on the black market? Who is the authority who decides whose background is sufficiently clean to buy a gun? What happens when we get all the bugs worked out of the system and it is perfect then somebody decides that the next step is to screen buyers out by an extralegal means?

 

[Neal in GA]

Convicted felons don't get all their rights back. They're not allowed to vote or run for office either. I think this is a good thing.

I voted for 5 but should have voted for 6. It's already a crime in this country to purchase or attempt to purchase a firearm if you cannot legally own one. Background checks don't preempt that. I believe that anyone who is 18 or older and can legally own a firearm should legally be able to carry said firearm (open or concealed - their choice).

As for 18 year olds being old enough to fight and die carrying an automatic weapon but not old enough to carry concealed, this is partially true. At least in Georgia, if you're in the military, you have every right to carry concealed with or without a permit regardless of age. This is state law, of course, but it's just an example. Of course, 18 year olds, even in the military, still aren't considered old enough to buy a beer either, but that's a whole different can of worms.