Trauma Surgeon educates us about weapons
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
Not seeing any issue with Bloomberg on a short list for VP with McCain.
Then there seemed to be no problems with Japan and the UK in another thread (though you seem to ignore the much higher rate of being a victim of violent crime in the disarmed utopia of the UK these days).
Personally I agree with restrictions on those who have been committed as a danger due to mental illness (with a path to regain the right). I also agree with restrictions on VIOLENT felons, those with a history of using a weapon in the commission of a violent felony.
I believe carry should be allowed for all individuals on a shall issue basis for permits with the requirement of a background check and possibly up to 5 hours training in the laws pertaining to lethal force and basic gun safety. All fees for the exercise of this right must be paid by the state otherwise it is nothing but a poll tax and such training must be made available multiple times per month and within 30 miles of the place of residence. Any state not instituting the training in accordance with the above requirements must issue the permit within 30 days.
Private Property may ban carry in their locations but with no more than the right to ask one to leave and only so long as the facility is not considered generally accessible. Facilities cannot ban carry if they have taken no reasonable and effective steps to ensure those who might do so anyway with the intent of committing violence are also stopped (you want to ban, then you better search everyone. Your alternative is to simply not let people in as is your right.). Parking lots open to the general public are considered public and vehicles parked therein an extension of the owner's domicile (no snooping in private vehicles).
Background checks are required for store purchases and at gun shows where such checks are to be run by local sheriffs/LEOs at no charge to the public (again, charging for a right is a poll tax). Arranging for a purchase at a show and consummating it outside the show within 7 days to avoid the check will be considered willful evasion of the check and criminally punishable.
There should be no restriction on calibers, action, capacity or suppression for anything device which is designed to be employed by a single person and man portable. Any device which utilizes any form of explosive warhead or device (not including propellant) and or area effect (shotguns/shells and personally carried OC type sprays excluded) are subject to gov't regulation and restriction.
In no case shall a US citizen meeting the above criteria (with regards to the above limitations on violent armed felons and violent committed individuals) be restricted from owning and carrying the basic shoulder arms and side arms issued to the US military as well as any other individual shoulder or side arm based upon that technology. (This is to cover advances in technology which may not be foreseen)
There, that is where I stand. Now you.
MedicineBow
New member
Hilarious! I said McCain needs a short list because he's short. And Bloomberg is short, so how could he not be on the short list? (I confess to to that trend of shortness. Shortosity?)
And, believe it or not, I haven't thought out all the nooks and crannies of possible ownership/carry rules as you set out there.
Skimming your list, I sure don't think that we should have folks trotting around with automatic weapons -- if that's what your position is. (If that's not your position, sorry, I couldn't tell.) That's neither wise, nor a right protected by the Second Amendment, in my estimation.
As for the rest, or other laws that exist or get proposed, I always have to chew it over, piece by piece.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I think it is more a case of more availability of higher caliber weapons for the average man than it is of the available firepower actually increasing. 
Then I stand corrected. Sometimes sarcasm is difficult to discern online.
I have no problem with fully automatic and as it is the standard arm of the military I see no reason it should not be allowed for the population. I saw nothing in the 2A saying "this does not include arms suitable for use in war against enemies foreign or domestic." Your rational against automatic weapons can just as easily apply to the modern press and electronic medias.
I would fully support horrendously long sentences for those caught carrying weapons who were prohibited from doing so. Life without parole comes to mind.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
They may have been "selling like hotcakes" but the average person where I come from did not have .45acp auto-loaders or .44mag handguns. Definitely not in the numbers of today. Most people, if they had a handgun at all, had .38spl or .45colt revolvers. Remember when a Dirty Harry's gun was considered an oddity?
AlabamaFamilyMan
New member
Doctors...
When I hear something like this, I remember THIS site (http://www.dsgl.org)
for a refreshing counterpoint. (Doctors for Sensible Gun LawsTM resulted from the collaboration of members of KeepAndBearArms.com)
When I hear something like this, I remember THIS site (http://www.dsgl.org)
for a refreshing counterpoint. (Doctors for Sensible Gun LawsTM resulted from the collaboration of members of KeepAndBearArms.com)
WWII weapons could be bought by mail order for decades and fully automatic weapons were available in the early part of this century to any American at a general store.
Yes, that is a cowboy in woolly chaps using a fully automatic Thompson with a Drum mag on marauding Injuns. (Pardon the lack of political correctness.)
I stand corrected. A clearer picture is here and they appear to be banditos, not Injuns.
http://www.notpurfect.com/main/cowboy.gif
http://www.notpurfect.com/main/cowboy.gif
Playboypenguin
Moderator
The key word is "could" in that sentence. That does not mean they were bought by the majority of people. Most people could not afford it or did not even know it was available. The information age advantages we have today were not available back then and if you did not see that printed ad you had little way of even knowing it was available...if you could afford it in the first place.
Musketeer, thanks for going to the trouble.
But, in the judicial and legislative battles that will follow the people making the decisions will most certainly be old enough to remember when law enforcement and most of the bad guys were shooting revolvers and 32 or 38 caliber round nose ammo. I remember quite well when law enforcement changed and why.
If you can't comprehend the basis of the argument you are fighting, how do you expect to make a coherent argument against it in congress or a court of law.
But, in the judicial and legislative battles that will follow the people making the decisions will most certainly be old enough to remember when law enforcement and most of the bad guys were shooting revolvers and 32 or 38 caliber round nose ammo. I remember quite well when law enforcement changed and why.
If you can't comprehend the basis of the argument you are fighting, how do you expect to make a coherent argument against it in congress or a court of law.
Actually that was quite refreshing, not because of the commentary of Dr. Schwab but because of the 15 comments in the link, 14 of them took issue with the doctor's findings. The issues taken with Dr. Schwab's comments are for good reason: not only does he make heavy use of misleading of completely incorrect/false anti-gun stereotypes and scare tactics, but he does not back his statements up with any documented or otherwise verifiable data. He is simply presenting his own opinion and/or prejudices as fact.