More weapons regulations

Remove all ads!

NOG - There are two remedies for this: The first is the Courts, the Rule of Law. The courts did look at the Patriot Act, and I believe some changes were made. But the biggie is the election process. I'm sure part of the reason GWB became unpopular is because of his shredding of the Constitution. Congress is now looking very closely at his administration in regards to this matter.

This is part of the reason why political parties are necessary, as one tends to watch what the other is doing. The beauty of the system as you point out regarding the checks and balances, is that in many ways it is self-correcting. Still, elections are the great equalizer.

 

Ah, but Chandos, the courts haven't always been respected. I seem to recall it was Andrew Jackson who, when the Supreme Court made some decision (dealing with the south?) basically told them to enforce their decision themselves, that he wouldn't order anyone to do anything. This is what I mean by the 'division of powers'. They don't always agree. There are plenty who have accused Bush of expanding the powers of the executive branch into the realm of the legislative or judicial branch. Even election, as sacred as it is in the US, wasn't always a guarantee. When George Washington handed over power, there were apparently a great many who were quite anxious about whether or not he actually would until it happened. That process has never actually been opposed in US history, but what would happen if a popular president refused to give up power, especially after a controversial election or in the middle of a crisis.

Yes, there are ways within the system to handle anything going wrong, all the way up to constitutional amendments, but there's never a guarantee that the system will be respected at all, and if it isn't, no one can be sure what who would do. Who would the military side with? What about state legislatures? The police? The FBI and CIA? The public? What if many, or all of those, split?

 

Off the top of my head (and I really should know this, but not certain) that was dealing with the Cherokee Indians, and the broken treaties and such with them. Again, it's been a while since I've read about this stuff, so I probably have some things mixed up.

Beyond the the right to bear arms has never been much of a concern for me as my family doesn't own any. I understand that some people are trying to maintain the integrity of the constitution or whatnot, but I just don't see where having citizens with guns would really do much good... If the common people need to be armed, it's probably a little too late.

I think far too many of the supporters of the amendment just like having a gun, be it for hunting (food or sport), target shooting, or self defense. Hunting isn't altogether necessary these days, but I can understand that, as long as you eat the animal. Target shooting never appealed to me, but who knows, I just might be a weirdo there. And lastly I don't think I'll ever be threatened enough to want to carry a gun (this probably has more to do with where I live). So really, I don't care strongly either way. As such I think preserving the status quo may be the best option, but it seems to me that reforms in regulation may be necessary as well. Even if I don't profess to know what those reforms would be.

 

The purpose of maintaining the constitution has the effect of protecting the right to bear arms, but not really the purpose. You're right that, by the time arms are needed, it's too late to protect the constitution. It's not too late to do anything, though. The constitution may have been trashed by that point, but that doesn't mean the actual abilities of the people have to be as well.

 

This whole idea of America having a civil war or some kind of extra-constitutional revolution is too off-the-wall. It would be the concern of almost every industrialized nation, and you can be sure that everyone would become involved because of the balance of power.

A tiny nation like Vietnam had a civil war, and just about every major power felt the need to become involved. Do you think for a moment that the major superpower in the world would not raise grave concerns in a state of civil war? Every nation has a stake in what happens here, especially since something of that nature would completely trash the world economy. America would become a world battlefield overnight.

There are 300 million people who live in this country. Most of them would want the military to take control because they would want their homes and families to be safe. That would mean a military government. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that the Consitution would come first, as individuals started grabbing money and power for themselves, is living in a fantasy world (and that is what most of this nonsense is). There aren't any George Washingtons any longer. What you would get is either foreign occupation, or another Napoleon. the Consitution would be gone out the window. The Founders intended the Constitution to be part of a legal and political framework.

The first time individuals "took up arms" against the Founders themselves, they were mostly horrified:

This kind of action usually causes a reaction towards greater centralized control, as can be seen with the Founders themselves:

http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

History is a good teacher.

 

I do not know much about weapons laws in the US, so I have a few questions (and comments).

I think it's moot to discuss the 2nd amendment. (Nice picture, though, DR. ) It's not realistic to think that it will be changed, amended or deleted (or whatever) anytime soon.

What I want to know is: What does a individual to do to get to buy a weapon? I know it's different from state to state. But what are the most common regulations in place?
Is there something akin to a test for a driver's licence?

If not, would that not be a good idea? Cars can be deadly weapons, too, so it would not be so far-fetched to implement a test for potential gun owners where they prove that they can be trusted with a weapon, since these things are solely build to harm living beings (as opposed to cars).

 

FM - What you are suggesting is what most gun control advocates have been arguing for years and years. Anyone can buy a gun. They can mail-order them, go to gun shows, buy them from a neighbor. But if you go into a shop or store, then you have to do the background check, photo ID, all that good stuff that pro-gunners hate.

You can't buy a beer until you are twenty-one, can't drive a car until you are sixteen, can't vote until you are eighteen, but, just about any criminal, moron, lunatic, ten year old, and I mean almost anyone can buy a gun.

I included a list and timeline of federal regulations at the bottom of the post. But there are ways around these that most gun advocates know full-well. Mial-order is the interesting part because of its controversy. But anyone who has been a victim of ID theft or credit card theft knows that you can order anythnig with anyone's ID and have it delivered just about anywhere.

Martaug would be the real expert on these matters and I'm sure he would know all the laws and ways to get around them. Gun control is not my issue. I agree that it is a Constitutional right for responsible citizens to own firearms, no question. But there is a common sense part of me that says that giving a ten year-old a loaded gun is idiotic.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

 

Sorry chandos, RL is being a pain.
Ok first, You seem to have a fundamentally different viewpoint on the bill of rights. Everything i have ever read has indicated that without the bill of rights the constitution would never have been ratified by all of the states. This seems to have been the compromise worked out to adopt the "virginia plan" instead of the "New Jersey plan".

On the gun control issue, lets get some points cleared up.
1) You can not buy a gun from mail order & get it shipped to you. You can order one via mail-order & have it shipped to your local gun store(a licensed FFL holder). You than have to go to the store & fill out the same paperwork as if the gun was part of their standing inventory.
2) All firearms are licensed at gunshows. A vendor* at a gunshow is just like the gunstore you visit, every one that sells firearms is a licensed FFL holder.
* - Now the anti-gunners like to throw around a figure that "half" of all vendors at gunshows are not FFL holders. Thats true, as at least half of the vendors at gunshows DON'T sell guns! You have vendors that sell nothing but knives, T-shirts, old war memorabilia(Civil, WW1, WW2, korea,vietnam, etc), safe dealers, books, clothes, jewelry, etc.
Also dealers in "antique" firearms - These are firearms manufactured before 1898(they may have even raised it as they normally deem any weapon over 100 years old an antique) -or- those that do not use modern fixed ammunition(Muzzleloaders). They are not required to hold an FFL.

3) Now as to the point of buying from your neighbor - yes you can*(In some states & within limits, most states typically only allow you to sell 1-3 a year or if you are selling off your whole collection) but, but, you can also sell off your car(& cars kill many times more people each year) without going to a car dealer.
Would you stand for laws that REQUIRED you to sell your car to a dealer(who is going to pay you much less than it is worth) & made it illegal for you to sell it yourself?
* - If you sell a firearm as an individual(& some gunshows don't allow this) you have to follow the same regs as a dealer as far as paperwork goes(an ATF 4473 filled out correctly & a gun permit issued by the county of residence of the buyer). You are required to keep this paperwork for a period of years(it varies by state, here it is 10 years).

And again just to reiterate, buying by Mail-order, it will be shipped only to a licensed FFL holder(no having it shipped to your house Unless you are an FFL holder & your house is listed as your place of business).

I hope that this helps clear some points up.

 

Martaug - You da Man!

But regarding the Constitution: The Bill of Rights was not in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Our mutual friend, Thomas Jefferson, insisted, by suggesting it to Madison, that it be added 4 years later.

 

You are right, it wasn't in the constitution at first but it was agreed to at the convetions of 1787, 1788 If i'm not mistaken.(i figured if anyone here would know for sure, it would be you).

 

Martaug - This ties into Mr Young's correct assertion about the Bill of Rights:

Again, thank you for the link regarding Mr. Young. It's a good link. I think he is being generous to historians who dismiss the Bill Rights, as pertaining to the individual, as "not understanding it properly." And as he comments, it is "disturbing." IMO, those historians which he cites are conveniently side-stepping the true nature of the Bill and its intent in order to put forth an "anti-gun" agenda, which in my opinion is unfortunate. They know full-well its intent, since it is so plain to anyone who has even looked even casually at the hiistory. While the Founders obviously wanted a citizen armed militia, the right to bear arms is a indeed a personal liberty. Where I may disagree is in the notion that they intended the right specially for citizens to take up arms against the government. I don't feel that it was their specific intent.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/

 

I must have read something you had written previously wrong as i (somehow) was thinking you were of the opinion it wasn't an individual right.

I agree with everything you stated in the last few posts.

Hmmm, so know we have to come up with something else to argue about(oops, errr, i meant "discuss").

 

Chandos, you have to at least admit that it was certainly a recognized possibility, considering that they had just done the same thing.

 

Thank you both.

@martaug: Does something speak against aforementioned test to check if a person is suitable to own and/or carry a gun?

 

If the ownership of guns is a right, then there is very little that can be done in terms of a test or such to deny someone that right. The only thing that can legally be done, IMHO, is check to see if the person has a criminal record. If their behaviour has been such that society does not trust them, then their right to own a gun can be curtailed, just as convicted criminals have many of their other rights curtailed because of their criminal acts.

This is worrisome, because some days I would like there to be some sort of psych test beforehand to determine suitability. But in terms of rights, as I understand them, a person cannot be denied rights until they have actually DONE something that renders them ineligible.

Even worse is the idea of kids owning guns. I would assume that in a healthy household parents would deny their children unlimited access to guns, but we all know that many households are not healthy. I would have no problem with a law that restricts the sale of guns to those 18 years of age and older.

But my bottom line is that if you deal with items, you will lose every time. If you deal with PEOPLE, you have a much better chance of experiencing success.

 

Uhhh, i'm not quite sure what you are asking here, sorry.

It's actually higher than that right now, you have to be 18 to buy a long gun(shotgun or rifle) & 21 to buy a pistol.
Personally, i think all children should take the Eddie Eagle course given by the NRA(http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/) & be taught to shoot by the time they are 7 or so.
By teaching them properly & safely, you take the mystique away from it & it becomes just another thing your parents make you learn to be safe.

 

I agree. Two summers ago at Boy Scout Camp; Little Snook earned his rifle shooting merit badge. It was the first time he had ever held a rifle and they easily spent more time on safety then they actually did firing. He did most of his shooting at free time.

 

This lady sums it up very well from a womans POV. http://womenofcaliber.wordpress.com/

Spoiler

I carry a firearm to ensure my children are educated about firearm safety, not the victims of some other child’s(or adult’s) ignorance.
I know that the best way to teach a child about firearm safety is to remove the air of mystery from it and to truly educate them about the “when’s” “why’s” and “how’s” of a firearm. I know that if I am not educated on the use of a firearm then, should I come across one in the hands of a child, my ignorance may merely add to a dangerous situation instead of eliminating it.

I carry a firearm because I know what looks good on me—confidence. Possessing the ability to defend one’s self has an amazing affect on confidence. The opposite of confidence is fear. And I’ve discovered that my fear masks a great deal of wonderful attributes such as kindness, love, and charity. When I’m more confident, I’m a much better person to share with everyone else in my life.

I carry a firearm because I don’t trust my “gift for gab.” As great as I am at talking to complete strangers in ideal circumstances, it’s unlikely to do me any good against someone who is intent on causing me harm. However, I find a great deal of research that says a firearm is a much stronger negotiator than I could ever hope to be.

I carry a firearm because I am a mother (or an aunt, grandmother, sister, etc)—a calling which I take very seriously. As a mother I have no other more critical responsibility than to take care of myself AND those entrusted to be in my care. If something should happen to myself which would threaten to eliminate me from this earth and my influence upon my children, or threaten to remove them from my arms of love, then I will be sufficiently skillful and armed in ensuring that this does not take place. If some harm does come to my children, it will not be because I could not overcome my own fears or my own foolish prejudices. I cannot stop everything awful from happening to them, but I can ensure that I am the best prepared to stop most. Only then are my hands clean before my Maker, knowing that I truly did my best to protect them. In doing so, not only do I raise my children well, but I give them a chance to do the same with their own.

I carry a firearm to help the nation which I live in and raise my family in, be strong and secure. Protection of a nation begins with protection of an individual. What good is sending my husband, father, brother or son off to fight in a war—whether it be in a foreign nation or against the crime in our cities—if I’m not willing to do my part to protect our nation as well? This nation is strong only because of our freedom. I carry a firearm to ensure that I get to keep my freedom when someone else may attempt to usurp it.

I carry a firearm because I know my physical limits. While I may run the equivalent of several miles every day with my busy lifestyle, and I work out to strengthen my muscles, none of this prepares me sufficiently for a violent encounter. Whether I like it or not, the prospect of a 6’4”, 280-pound, drug-crazed criminal acting against my freedom is realistic. I also know that a good right hook or a kick to the groin, however well planted it may be, may just be the additional bit of anger my assailant needs to kill me. That’s unacceptable—unacceptable that the criminal’s actions against me could eliminate my freedom to live. Thus, a firearm may be exactly what I need to stop the assailant. I’m not willing to gamble with the use of weaker forms of defense. I fight back to win unequivocally, not to wonder if I have done enough.

I carry a firearm because I prefer my close encounters to be for love, not fighting. As such, I prefer to never have to remember the alcohol and drug-induced breath, or the color or rage in the assailant’s eyes, or the feel of his powerful fists against my head. I prefer to let the bullet do the fighting for me. I believe I will be much saner after such an encounter.

I carry a firearm because I hate waiting and wondering. I know the number of police officers who work in any community at any given time. I know that the number of criminal acts out-number law enforcement an average of 10 to 1. Thus I choose to wait on 911 only after I’ve done my part to ensure my safety, instead of relegating my safety to the insurmountable odds that someone else can defend me in my time of need.

I carry a firearm because I am an independent woman, not a statistic. As such I refuse to be weak, afraid, and naïve. I insist on mastering my domain by asserting my time and talents to take responsibility for my own safety and peace of mind. Too many women are statistics of crime, not acts of strength. I simply don’t feel that properly describes me, yet I know that the only one that can stop this false impression from perpetuating is me.

I carry a firearm because as a woman, I’m all about being prepared. I never let my gas tank go down below half, never open the door to someone I don’t know, and I never give out my credit card number to someone I didn’t call… just in case. If you were to look in my purse right now you would see band-aids (that have been in there forever… just in case) lipstick, face powder, hair brush, and hair spray (even though I leave my home properly made up… it’s just in case), more cash that I would ever think of using in a day (just in case), a fuel credit card because I don’t believe in using credit… just in case… and a small sewing kit with safety pins… just in case. Suffice it to say that I rarely use my “just in case” items, but I sure hate being without them when I need them. If you were to delve further into my handbag you would also find a knife, an Asp, red-dyed pepper spray and a firearm with a spare magazine. You guessed it…just in case.

I carry a firearm because as a woman I have the privilege of giving life. That’s right. I don’t carry a gun to take life, but to ensure that it’s fully given to those who make the choices to live.

Not much else to say after reading all of her reasonings

 

I think I can sum up her reasonings in a single sentence. She carries a gun because she's paranoid.

Now that won't change the fact that she has every right to be paranoid. I just happen to disagree that people need guns in most western socities to feel safe. But then I suppose that the feeling of saefty is subjective and if a gun makes her feel more confident and safe then sure let her carry it. However in the unfortunate incident that the firearm is ever unsheathed or used, she should carry the full responsibility for it.

 

Morgoroth, I don't think so at all. paranoia, by definition, requires that the fears be irrational. In this world, I don't think a single one of her fears are irrational or unfounded. Is she preparing for a statistical rarity? Maybe, but when the consequences of that rarity are death, that's entirely rational. How many people get medical check-ups on a regular basis, even when nothing seems wrong? How many people have life insurance at a young age?

The reality of this world (and some, but not all, of this may be cultural) guns exist, they exist in the community, and even outside of that, some people intend harm to others and take advantage of other people's weaknesses. To ignore those two things is to live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

My father taught me to shoot when I was 5 years old. I didn't particularly enjoy it, but I didn't particularly dislike it either. The two things I remember most clearly, and these are among my most clear memories of all from that age, were the first two rules of safety he taught us:

1.) NEVER aim a firearm at anything you do not intend to kill. Even if the safety is on, the gun is unloaded, and you're holding the firing pin in your hand, NEVER aim a firearm at anything you do not intend to kill. Mistakes happen, and when mistakes happen with guns, they're dangerous ones. You may KNOW that you KNOW that you KNOW that the safety is off, that you've spent all the bullets or unloaded the firearm, or that there's no chance it could ever go off; and you may be wrong. Best that happen when it's pointed at a wall or the floor or a tree rather than a person.

2.) NEVER point a firearm into the air. If it goes off, you have no idea what happened to that bullet. It may land 1000 feet away, or it may land right on top of you. When you carry a firearm, when you're holding it at the ready, whenever you aren't aiming it at something, you point it at the ground. If it goes off then, you know where the bullet went: into the dirt.

If you watch military/police drills, you can see these principles in action. Whenever one person passes in front of another, the person behind lowers his/her gun and points it at the ground. Of all the firearms accidents I've ever heard of, the vast majority could hae been prevented by those two rules above, and the vast majority also happened to those that weren't educated in gun safety.