Gun Control, who's for it?

How can one be "Hypocritical" about something that doesn't exist?

What I choose to defend myself with is my business. My choice of a firearm will depend on the nature of the threat. As far as I can tell (and based on Senator Feinstein's quote) most Pro-Gun Control proponents want all firearms banned!

Which of the words in the Second Amendment are confusing you? A background check is supposed to determine if you are a felon or are prevented from possessing a firearm for some other legal reason, not to prevent Law-abiding citizens from owning a gun. Most of the extended waiting periods in some states are bogus and un-Constitutional infringement on our rights. The system as currently set up is supposed to allow for instant background checks.

The laws we have in place are enough! The bottom line is if you restrict the law biding citizen, the criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage.

Good quote since we are on the subjects of hypocrits.

All of the rights ennumerated in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are precious and sancrosanct to me. I don't see any hypocracy there. Just a note from the devil's advocate, though. I don't see any of those amendments addressing any "right to privacy" other than the fourth ammendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

Really? Several points come to mind.

First - the term assault rifle refers to "A military rifle intended purely for one-man operation and equipped to provide both semiautomatic or full-automatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device. Today's assault rifles are typified by the Soviet AK 47 and the US M 16." True assault rifles are incredibly heavily regulated by Federal law.

Semi-automatic firearms are not assault rifles, no matter who "cool" they may look. It's that simple.

Second - On my job I am issued a military style semi-automatic patrol rifle for the sole purpose of self-defense, precisely because in some situations it is the best firearm for the job at hand. Not more deadly by any stretch, but more accurate at longer ranges. The objective is give me a tool that is accurate enough that I can stop the "bad guy" from shooting with less danger to innocent bystanders who might be near the assailant.

If someone is busting caps at you with his grampa's deer rifle from 80 yards distance, you aren't going to be able to do much to defend your own life with a handgun that is accurately effective at only 35 to 50 yards, especially if you there innocent bystanders standing around in harm's way.

Third - please explain exactly what that big difference is in your own mind. I just don't see it myself.

I agree that training and responsibility are vital, but we are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege of doing so. The moment you establish such a legal requirement, it is no longer a right, but merely a privilege granted by, and easily rescinded by, the Sovereign.

Many States do grant a privilege of carrying a firearm concealed with a permit, and most of those do require training, including a competency examination in order to acquire a permit allowing you to exercise that privilege. Most are also very clear that the privilege may be rescinded at the whim of the State.

Swanny


We do not require a background check to own a firearm, we require a background check to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer. The constitutionality of that is pretty shaky, based on the government's constitutional authority to regulate interstate trade - simply because the government has no authority to regulate firearms per se.

First off, I agree that privacy is not a right, and therefore speaking out against privacy while upholding the 2nd amendment is not hypocritical.

I was not inferring that assualt rifles should be banned...I was simply stating that there is a difference between carrying a hand gun vs an assault rifle for defense. For example, which would you carry for everyday use and protection? A hand gun, or an assualt rifle? I realize that law enforcement and others carry assualt rifles in there vehicles, but they do not simply walk around with them. These people are also actively putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations where an assault rifle would be useful on occasion.

Question for you Swanny. Before you were allowed to have the assault rifle were you trained in its use, or did they simply give it to you in case you needed it?

I really don't see what the big deal is in having someone take a class before being allowed to purchase guns. I think it would be good for everyone involved. I don't think having to sit through a class makes it a privilage either. If you had to pass a class, then yeah, I could see that. But simple instruction I don't see as infringing on anyone's rights.

Frankly I don't see how someone can adequately protect themselves without at least a basic training in the use of the weapon.

CC,
I don't know where you are from, but out here where I live, MOST if not all kids LEARN to shoot and handle ALL firearms safely. From our Dads, Uncles and Granddads. As A kid I got smacked for pointing a cap gun at my sister.
THEN we have to take a Hunter Education class to get a hunting license, with, you guessed it, MORE firearms safety. As I've posted before, the kids take them to school after early morning hunts and for after school. It drives the Rent-a-Cop nuts, but HEY! Welcome to rural America! I don't know a kid over 7 that hasn't learned to shoot here, unless he's an import, this is a college town and SOME of the folks that pulls in have some damn strange ideas!
My point is that MOST people who buy a gun have had some form of training. You don't usually grow up in a non-gun family and suddenly wake up one day and say "Hey, I'm gonna go get a gun!" Some do, yes, but the majority of gun owners have grown up with them and have had more intensive "training" than ANY class you are proposing!

You are right. Lets just remember that the criminals don't take training classes so why should the law biding citizen be required to take a class?

just to throw in my canadian two cents.....tonight on the news in montreal they reported that they are now arming the cops(city cops not provincial) with tazers as well as their regular weapons...get this, so that the crazed junkie or just plain crazy person that pulls heat on them can be brought down without killing them!!!before it was just the swat that had them, but with all the crime involving "unstable"persons they figured they were off their heads from whatever they were on....duh....

How do we know if criminals are taking training classes or not?

heck, if those of you who are proponents of the 2nd amendment feel so strongly, then why not add a class on gun use to the PE curriculum in schools? Then everyone will get a basic training and understanding of weapons, it's not infringing upon the rights of anyone because teenagers can't buy guns anyway, and now everyone is a little more educated.

What do you all think of that idea?

OH, and I forgot to say it before in my earlier post.

If you don't like the idea of using less lethal weapons such as tasers, etc, fine. Go out and kill anyone that threatens you or gets in your way.

But don't mock those that would use these weapons. Don't mock the idea of giving the police the choice of using a taser instead of a gun. Not everyone is willing to gun down someone just because they would be in the right to do so, not if there are other options available.

I work as a security officer/paramedic at a facilty considered vital to the National security. Most of the time I work at a fixed post (as opposed to patrol). I carry my handgun on my hip and the patrol rifle is parked in a quick-release locking rack next to the door of my guard shack alongside my shotgun. On patrol it's kept next to the shotgun, in a rack in the cab of the truck.

That's really immaterial, though. For every day protection around the house I frequently carry a 12 gauge pump shotgun. I live in grizzly bear country and it is not uncommon at all to see folks show up anywhere except the local bar with either a rifle or shotgun in hand.

I was given a 10 minute "familiarization" of the rifle. A different company had the contract back then and they were cheap to the extreme. It was so bad that I had to call a buddy who retired from the military to come over to the house and show me how to disassemble the rifle for cleaning and maintenance. I'm very grateful that the new contractor takes things things FAR more seriously.

Should we require people to take a class in logic and debate before practicing their right to free speech? How about requiring people to sit through a class before being allowed to worship in the manner they choose? Perhaps a class before being allowed to hang with friends on a street corner (right to assemble)?

The problem with rights is that if they are no longer inviolable, then they are no longer rights - merely privileges.

Untrained people defend themselves from attack every day. They may not use a firearm or other weapon, but when attacked people resort to whatever option they may have available. Feet, fists, nails and teeth. I once saw the results of a frail little 72 year old widow swinging a 5 pound ashtray. It ended the assault and her assailant received a nasty crease to the temple and significant underlying brain damage. Even the abused child who curls up in a little ball is defending herself as best she can against the onslaught, even if it costs her her emotional health to do so.

One doesn't need to know how to safely operate a firearm in order to operate it. Just point and pull the trigger until it quits going "bang".

I'm not suggesting that people should not be trained, but I am opposed to that training being mandated by the Sovereign. Those who chose to forego such training should (and usually are) be held accountable for their inevitable mistakes.

In the U.S. tazers are used most often in response to a knife or other edged weapon, rather than use on someone armed with a gun. They have saved many lives over the past few years subduing people that previous would have been shot. They have their down-side (some deaths have occurred as a result of their use), but they have saved many, many criminals and nut-cases from death and have had a considerable impact on the numbers of "suicide-by-cop" fatalities.

Swanny

cc- it was not a mock!! it was just another use for another choice of weaponary that the cops have chosen to use....but tazers can kill too

Where my kids went to high school, hunter safety classes ARE required for every student. But this is a pre-requisite for a hunting license, not for buying a gun. Big difference.

I apologize for the acusatory tone of my post. I got carried away.

I agree they should include gun safty in schools but all the far lefters would pitch a fit. I think Isreal and Switzerland should be looked at when it comes to this idea.