(In an effort to stay as politically correct here as possible.;))

I’m not saying anything about what is and isn’t working in DC. Nor, what will and wont. (I guess I should have said: Work the same way.)

I’m saying that there are quite a few factors involved with regard to where mandatory gun ownership will and will not work. It’s not a blanket solution.

i.e. In a small southern town of a few thousand folks is one thing. In a big city (such as DC) full of gangs, poverty, various levels of mental/physical/financial stability is quite another.

If you can’t see, as well as understand that. I can’t explain it to you, and wont waste our time trying.

BTW (and for the record) – I am by no means anti gun. I own a few. Quite a few. And a CHL/CCL. I carry quite often.

However (as I told Bot) - I just get sick of hearing from folks whos "big picture" is actually a wallet sized black and white image they drew up and printed themselves.
(That’s not necessarily directed at anyone in particular. Though it certainly could be.)

The whole point of federalism is to allow for diversity of opinions, lifestyles, culture, etc. Folks who live in oh say ... Berkeley probably don't think that living the way folks live in Crossett AR would be such a great idea. And vice-versa, I feel certain. To me, that's a good thing. People in DC want to live at the mercy of thugs? Fine with me, go for it. Folks in Crossett want to squirrel hunt with their kids before school? Go for it.

B

I guess the trick is to figure out how to make it mandatory for those “living at the mercy” to own guns. And not the thugs themselves.

Looking at the mentalities alone (Feel free to grasp that which produces and drives said mentalities on your own.), of both parties (much less, the zillions in between). This is not a pretty picture where crime rates drop and everyone lives in peace.

“Berkeley” ?? Was that a shot?:eek: :D (or should I ask: A troll?)

Well, lets look at it this way:
You are in a classroom, if its like many of the classrooms when I went to college then there are two entrances/exits, usually on one wall of the room. A lunatic enters, draws weapons and starts shooting. There will be a stampede to the doors if the shooter is not blocking them and/or people piling up in the back of the room trying to cover themselves, etc.

So the question you are asking is do I want to be in this situation with a lunatic shooter and no other person armed? Or do I want at least the CHANCE of a CCW present that MAY be able to return fire? I will take the CHANCE with CCW every time. Sure, there is a chance that I may be killed by the CCW, or even the police, if they make it on time and shoot the anybody in the room with a gun. I'll take that CHANCE.

Without that CHANCE I and everyone else in the room is a victim just waiting for execution and praying that someone "saves" us.

Lets take a look at the VT shooting. The lunatic went room to room, shooting and reloading, returning to some rooms to shoot people again. The holocaust survivor professor was shot trying to barricade a door and keep the lunatic at bay. Do the naysayers NOT see how there might have been a CHANCE for someone to do something if CCW had been allowed? How much F#$%ing clearer can I make it?

My original comments revolved around simply allowing CCW permit holders to carry in more places, like universities, etc. The CCW holders are already there. It would be extremely unlikely that someone would run right out and obtain CCW permit simply to carry on campuses. The people that want them already have them, they just leave the weapons at home when they can't carry where they are going. This is not "arming everyone" or any of the other alarmist BS stated above.

RT

I agree that mandatory ownership is not the answer, for obvious reasons, however, blanket disarmament is not the answer either as it only disarms the law abiding citizens because the criminals will carry either way.

Two points: One, I mentioned Kennesaw because is shows a direct relationship between law abiding citizens possessing firearms and the drop in the crime rate (the inverse relationship clearly shows that the more law abiding citizens who possess a firearm the less crime there is in that region) . Two, CHL and/or a permit systems seems to work when the restrictions are reasonable and are considered “Shall Issue.” This can be determined by the many reports out there that show that those who are issued permits are not people committing crime.

I am very pro 2A, and that being said, I also do not believe everyone should be allowed to possess a firearm. I believe there should be some “reasonable” restrictions on both ownership and carry. I think the real issue is determining what is reasonable and what is not.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say that mental defectives should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. I also think it would be reasonable to have a built in mechanism/process so that a mental defective can prove their stability and get their right back. A good example of this is that some legislators out there are trying to band combat vets diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome from owning or possessing firearms. I “might” concede that one that is diagnosed with PTSS is unstable and should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm, However, I would assert that at some point they might be stable and should be afforded their constitutional right.

I agree 100%

We're on the same page, side of the coin, fence, whatever.

WVOtoGO said it right. I've looked into that stats before and it's easy to cherry-pick them to support any belief you might have. My impression is that overall legal gun ownership doesn't seem to affect the murder rate. There are peaceful, relatively heavily-armed countries like Finland and Switzerland, and there are peaceful, virtually unarmed societies like Japan. There are also violent societies like US and Mexico where US is heavily armed and Mexico is not. It's got everything to do with how civilized and peaceful the population is. The US has a long way to go.

First off – I sure hope you’re not referring to me with the “alarmist BS” line.


Anyway. Let’s look at it this way:
Kid passes every test and background check and gets a CHL, CCW, whatever….
Kid has his gun in his backpack when some nut-bag comes into the room armed to the teeth and attempts to start killing other students.
Kid pulls out his gun and drops the nut-bag before he gets a shot off.
Kid wakes up the next day a national hero.
(I’m all for that story, BTW.)
-or-
Kid wakes up the night before to the sound of gun shots. It seems that some other members of his frat house got drunk, found his gun and just “accidentally” (they just wanted to scare him) shot some kid from another frat coming over to TP their house. Other kids parents sue the sh-t out of the school for allowing this to happen…
-or-
Something related to “Thank God that wonderful man had a gun and put a stop to the madness….”
-or-
Well. Bottom line. If he didn’t have that gun….
-or-

Well…that list of stories can go on forever.
And for every -or- that anyone can add to it, either good ending or bad. Someone can always add one to the contrary. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not all cut and dry.

I agree with what you’ve said. I like your story. But you said yourself: “Let’s look at it this way:” If that’s how we look at it fine. I hope I’m in the class with you. I hope we can triangulate the MF and one of us gets a clear shot. After the CNN interview, I’ll buy the first round at the bar.

As for VT. Yep – Sure would have been nice if someone had a gun in there besides the nut-bag.
But how/who/why/etc. we get a gun in there isn’t as cut and dry as some might think. That’s all I’m saying. If it were that cut and dry. It would have been cut and dried some time ago.

“My original comments revolved around simply allowing CCW permit holders to carry in more places, like universities…”
From recent events, I can certainly see your point. And, I agree.

But how are we (PLEASE NOTE THAT I SAID: “WE”) going to deal with the irate parents who wont send their kids to a school that’s a melting pot of people, some of whom can legally walk around on, as well as live on, get drunk on, live in groups on, with a gun? (This picture gets much bigger, quite quickly btw.)

Sadly – This can go ‘round and ‘round forever.

Like has been said above. The trick is figuring out some sort of "law abiding citizens” formula. Somewhere in the formula also lies the “factors of large groups” formula and the “every scenario is different” formula. Once we get the formulas down, only then can the proper changes/laws/procedures be made that keep the masses happy.

edit:
Until then – Both extremist parties can bang their heads on the wall all they want.
I’ve got better things to do with my head (either one), so I’m not going to join either.

I think I have mentioned this before but here it goes again.

I have a 14 yr old son at home. I have several guns at home as a well. I am confident that my son will make the right choice when it comes to firearms…why you ask? From the time I introduced guns into the house, I taught my son how to respect the firearm. I taught him respect for it, I taught him safe handling of it, I taught him marksmanship with it ( he loves going to the range with me). I also teach my son values, not only when it come to firearms but values in everyday life. My wife and I do not simply let him watch what ever he wants on TV or play any video game that suits his fancy. He is not allowed to watch shows that glorify violence or the abuse of women, and etc. The same goes for his video games and music. I am one of the fortunate ones that get home at a decent hour and able to have dinner with the entire family. During dinner we watch the news and have round table discussions about the topics discussed on the news that day. We teach our kids the value of hard work and the value of earning money to get those things in life we want. We teach them that every action has a consequence. Some actions have positive consequences while other have negative consequences. The kids learn that making the right choice usually leads to a positive consequence and therefore open more doors and opportunities, while making a bad choice usually leads to a negative consequence which shuts door and opportunities.

The bottom line is that a lot of the issues can be resolved simply by getting involved in our children’s lives. Teaching them values. Teaching them right from wrong. Standing up and not being afraid to parent and mentor our children…even at the risk of them hating us…because we know that it is the right thing to do….and they will thank us when they are 30 yrs old and have their own children.

I will get off my soap box now….sorry for the rant.

First off – I sure hope you’re not referring to me with the “alarmist BS” line.

Sorry for any confusion.
"Sure hope..." As in, sure hope you're smarter than that.

Like I said: This can go ‘round and ‘round forever.

Ha! We dragged you into this morass and you wont get yourass out!

B

Given that you have to be over 21 to have a CCW, I can see another drawback here. It would do nothing in high schools and even on college campuses most students are under 21. A potential shooter would just plan on shooting up a 1st or 2nd year class or just go straight to the dorms.

That might help a bit but it would also make them the primary target.

Yes...a target that can defend itself. A target that is not a child. A target that should be responsible in their decision making.

Last point is that concealed is concealed and the Bad Guy would not necessarily know which faculty and staff are armed. It could be the janitor or the principal/president.

Damn right: "morass". :mad:
Wont, my ass. :rolleyes:
Have a nice ass day. :)
My ass is head'n out and up from here. :D
(I'll stop there)

Have a great weekend all !!

Gotcha! You're stuck here with the rest of us now. RT

I've decided to get my daughter a Glock for her high school graduation present. I want her to be ready for college at Virginia Tech in the Fall!

Budadow, Budadow, Bow, bow, bow!

I'm talking about the risks. The outcomes will be whatever they are. In regards to students carrying, I find the risks to be too high. Outcomes must have an occurrence. Each one will be an any given Sunday variety. Maybe a CCW holder will shoot the villain before he gets a shot off, maybe it'll be a bloodbath. Since the outcome cannot be known prior to the specific incident, we are forced to consider likely risks.
Don't worry though, I won't continue with someone who doesn't want to listen.

You can rest assured my posts are the alarmist BS, not yours. I find it a bit funny that I pretty much agree with pt145ss's post (#105), and rwthomas porbably agrees with him too. I'm the alarmist though.
I've given my reasons why I don't think it's a good idea to arm students. Despite pt145ss's post about his 14 yr old, I am not convinced that a)the majority of kids are going to be that responsible, b)it is wise to give kids the opportunity to make mistakes on that scale, and c)that any amount of parenting can completely eliminate a moment's rash decision - something kids are hard wired to make. it would be a shame to burden a kid with such heavy consequences. Let their bad decisions lead to a moment's regret.

I'm more comfortable with professors carrying. Students would know where the weapon is, cops would, and a professor is far less likely to have his gun used poorly in some frat house. That is an acceptable level of risk to me.
I don't think the DC ban or amy statistics re: crime v. gun ownership are telling in any way. For example, in DC you can walk across Memorial Bridge to VA and buy as many guns as you want at a gun show, walk back across the bridge and blast away.
I think the mentally ill should lose their right to own a gun. I think people under 21 shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I think anyone convicted of a violent crime shouldn't be allowed to own. I think there should be a thorough federal background check when purchasing a gun, made possible by a 5 day waiting period. I think the gun show loophole should be closed federally. I think fingerprint resistant weapons should be off the market. I think a gun safety course should be required before purchase, like driver's ed is before being allowed behind the wheel. I think that's reasonable.









Oh, and one more: ban all guns.

I can make a gun in my garage. How are you going to ban that?

Ban garages, of course.

Yes, and that will do exactly what is has done everywhere else it has been tried. Absolutely nothing. Show me evidence it works and I will agree with you.

On the waiting period, what's wrong with waiting 5 days? The time will allow for proper depth of the background check.

The gun show loophole is obviously that buyers are not subject to background checks. Gun shows (and private sales) are a great example of how legal firearms can be the ones that end up in criminals' hands. I want all gun sales to have the buyer go through the check. As for you and your actions being the government's business, it is if you are engaged in illegal activity. Privacy is gone. Anyone can know anything about you. Especially if you are for the Nat'l ID card.

Look it up. I'm talking about fingerprint resistant coatings/materials. No need for them as long as a gun owner maintains his weapon, not to mention it'd take decades of wear for hand oils to damage grip materials.


Good for the NRA. Are they pushing for a safety course requirement for gun ownership? I hope so.
I don't know why tax dollars would have to be allocated to build anything. Tax dollars didn't provide for my EZ Method driving course I had to complete with it's 7hrs behind the wheel to get me a DL. Tax dollars don't provide for locations purpose built for driving courses. Any current range could start offering a government approved safety course, and you could sign up for it. It's good for you and the shooting range business.

Quote:

I doubt that would make you happy, since your true goal has been stated below. You should know that you will be fought every step of the way. I don't plan on EVER giving in to people of your ilk and there are many more that think just like I do. Many more than you realize. RT

:D :D Thanks.

Does anyone really know how long it takes? Is 5 days too little, too much, not enough, what? I know I can get approved for a handgun today but there will be a waiting period, aka cooling off period. Now, my question would be whether waiting another 4 days would prevent anything or not.

I'd be curious as to how we could administer it. What this means is that you have to give Citizen Joe the same access as the gun dealer. Otherwise, how will I check whether you are an honest person or some scumbag trying to shoot his wife?

So do I

The problem with waiting 5 days is that it is simply unnecessary. With todays technology the check can and is done instantly as the NICS system is tied into Fed, state and local law enforcement records. More databases are being incorporated all the time, many don't have anything to do with law enforcement but that speaks to your Big Brother references. Delaying for 5 days to do what can now do instantly does nothing but inconvenience people.

As far as the "loophole" goes I would have no problem with private sales having access to the NICS system on a sale by sale basis but I do not want it to be mandatory. As it stands now NRA has fought for private access and been denied. No reason that it couldn't be done. I have owned and sold a few guns to friends when I grew tired of them. I really don't think the govt needs to know about that.

Regarding the National ID, etc. I am quite strongly against it. While you may think privacy is dead that depends on perspective. Privacy is only dead to the information that is available and entered into a computer. Look how hard it has been for our technology to find terrorists. If you don't leave an electronic or paper trail its awful hard to gather data. Many people are doing more and more business in cash. Bartering is becoming more common. Why is that? Backlash to Big Brother? Maybe.

Regarding the fingerprint resistant finishes, the only real references I found about it was on Brady, VPC and other anti-gun websites. Hmmm, again, you don't understand the purpose. Traditional firearm finishes such as hot bluing and to a lesser extent phosphating (know also as Parkerizing) will hold fingerprints and then rust quickly when stored. Special care must be taken when a firearm is stored to keep this from happening. The "fingerprint resistant" finishes that you seem to think are a criminals wet dream are simply matte epoxy or resin coatings that are self lubricating and greatly reduce maintenance/corrosion problems. The finishes are matte to reduce glare from light. This has been done for years with stainless firearms, the metal is given a sandblast/beadblast treatment. It to is naturally "fingerprint resistant" but that is not its intent. Have you ever cleaned or even fired a gun?

The NRA is pushing for voluntary firearm safety training and doing a good job. They have a very good child safety course as well. I am against mandatory anything.

If you are planning on making training and licensing mandatory I would expect that the govt would also provide places to shoot and training. My fuel taxes, registration, etc. pay for roads, state inspections, DMV, etc. If I am going to pay for a license and be registered I want something for my money.

RT

The NICS check is not guaranteed to actually be instant. The answer has to be returned within three days if memory serves, or the buyer gets the gun without the check. Perhaps this time period should be lengthened, but it certainly should not be eliminated. To do so would mean that the government can suddenly make it impossible for any gun store to complete any legal sale at a whim.

Other delays don't make the NICS any more accurate. They only serve to assuage fears of someone going down to buy a gun in anger. As Homer said, "Five days? But I'm mad now!"

That's interesting. Mine have always come back within a few minutes. It takes me longer to fill out the form than the phone call to the government takes.

You are correct sir! There are three possible outcomes to filling out the yellow form and having an FFL call in to NICS:
1-You pass instantly, or certainly in a few minutes complete your purchase and you are on your way.
2-There is a wait/hold for 3 days. This means the system has some inconsistency in its records and cannot return a "go". The background check is completed and if the FFL/gunshop doesn't hear otherwise in 3 days the sale may proceed.
3-The system returns a NO. This is usually due to someone trying to purchase a firearm that shouldn't be. This SHOULD automatically result in a warrant being issued for the attempted purchase since a convicted felon can receive 5 years for each attempted purchase, 5 years for each firearm possessed, etc. Sadly, these easy convictions are largely ignored.

RT

My concern for the background check and 5 days is that the mental health issue for one is going to take longer to verify. That sort of thing isn't on some national database. Also of concern, and I don't know how it would work, is some sort of effort to ensure a name change or something doesn't hide a violent crime background.

Background checks are a joke if someone can legally buy a second hand gun from craigslist or a gun show without a background check. I say each gun should be registered like a vehicle through the DMV and I'd make it a felony to own an unregistered gun. Some gun nuts may see this as stepping on their rights, but I don't see the big deal. You go to the DMV to register your new vehicle and you don't complain (at least not too much) - I don't see why guns should get any special treatment. After all they can cause great bodily harm even more easily than a recklessly driven vehicle. The idea here is not to restrict gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. The idea is to make gun owners, both good and bad, more responsible and to more easily track down offenders. I bet if it wasn't for the NRA and its own agenda we'd already have this kind of system implemented.

RT, you forgot option 4. NCIS comes down to the shop. My gunsmith had that happen to him. They wanted to know about the guy he was trying to sell it to. Why? Because that guy was a known criminal based on the name. They asked him if he was sure that the guy was not the one in their pic. Gunsmith said it wasn't possible. The guy in their pic was black and the guy that applied for the transfer of firearm was white.

Problem with the NRA is that they are on one extreme fighting the other extreme. The other extreme is the "gun control" group. While they sound nice and warm, their actual intent is usually to control it to the point that nobody can own one. Therefore, the NRA is unwilling to give an inch since it could slowly chip away their rights till nobody gets to own one. The "gun control" side sees this and fights tooth and nail. Basically we have 2 fighting dogs that don't want to yield an inch. Is it bad? Well, if we didn't have the NRA, would the "gun control" people take away our gun rights? I think so. Do I support EVERYBODY's right to have a gun? Sure. When pigs fly. Some people should be allowed and some should not ever be allowed to touch a butter knife

The big deal is that there is a fairly large and politically powerful group of people in this country who want to ban/confiscate all guns. Gun registration makes it much much easier for the government to go around to all the known gun owners and round up the guns once they're banned. This has already happened in the UK and Australia.

1. No one is seriously trying to have cars banned. Yet.

2. You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Do you have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and drive cars? For the record, I think you should only have to register your vehicle if you drive it on public roads and that laws to the contrary are BS intended to generate revenue and reduce the number of "derelict" vehicles on private property.

I don't know about that. Ask the parents of the four kids killed recently by that illegal POS in Minnesota.

Were it not for the fact that registration facilitates confiscation, I might agree with you. But it does, so I don't, and I'm glad that me and my fellow NRA members have been able to counter gun grabbers as much as we have.

That's the problem, isn't it? We can't be sure that at some point, this group won't be able to seize the guns so we don't want to have them registered.

Not everyone who isn't a gun nut is an anti-gun nut. It's annoying as hell that one has to be a wacko on either side of the issue.



Ok, you should only have to register your weapon if you are a member of the public. You do have a constitutional right to keep and drive cars. There's just no specific amendment that addresses cars.



So what you're saying is that the so-called law abiding gun owners are only law abiding as long as they agree with what the law is? If the law changes to no guns allowed, to be law abiding would be to hand over your weapon.
Regardless, there will never be consensus enough to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't see the 2nd amendment getting repealed either no matter how hard some anti-gun people might try. I think this notion that the government might one day come to your house and confiscate your weapons is nothing but delusion and unfounded paranoia. I don't know of anyone trying to ban guns from everyone. People do have the right to feel safe and keeping guns from criminals is the ultimate and only purpose of gun control. If you resist even registering your gun, I feel you should not have the right to own one as you don't seem very law-abiding to me. There's about as many guns in this country as there are people. Do you think the government really needs a registration system to find guns and ban them if they wanted to? They just have to start knocking on doors and in most houses they would find some. However they'd be suicidal to even attempt something like that.

You are delusional. Here we go:

Do a search on the VPC or Violence Policy Center and the Brady Handgun Control group or whatever they call themselves now. Then search on Rebecca Peters and the UN and their moves to control small arms on a global level. Then search on George Soros, and I think its called the One World Foundation. All of these groups are pushing for various gun bans for various reasons and you need not look to far to find speeches/editorials where they come right out and say "yes, we want to ban them all'

There are plenty of politicians: Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. that have all flatly stated at one point or another that they would like to "ban all guns"

There are companies headed by CEO's and BoD's that have refused to do business with firearm companies, simply because they are firearms companies and they make sizable "donations" to the politicians and organizations listed above.

No place in the world has gun registration reduced crime. In fact, in ALL cases of registration the information has been used in the future to collect "illegal" weapons when said weapon has been made illegal by new legislation. If you don't believe me then most recently Britain, Canada and Australia have all used registration information to simply collect and destroy firearms by the thousands. In all cases, the original registration was supposed to be for crimefighting and never confiscation. Look it up.

Many weapons have been banned at the state level, California being the most restrictive. Most recently 50 caliber "sniper rifles" were banned for no particular reason. Not significant to crime in any way and helaciously expensive to purchase and shoot, yet demonized, mostly by the people above and now illegal in CA. If the weapon didn't cause crime, wasn't involved in crime then what was the issue?

In California a law passed that required registration of a certain type of rifle. There was a deadline for the registration after which the registered rifles were legal and the unregistered illegal. The deadline was extended by the State of California, twice, since the response was good and people kept coming in to register. The State, figuring this was a good thing, since the idea was to register, allowed it. After the second deadline expired an anti-gun group sued the State of California that the State had no right to extend the registration deadline. They WON! Guess what happened? All rifles registered AFTER the original deadline WERE COLLECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND DESTROYED. So when I hear that registration is a good thing and it will never result in my loosing my guns I know its complete BS. "It will never happen here!" Yep, it already has. Good citizens doing the right thing got screwed.

I was not always into guns or a 2nd amendment supporter. I actually grew up in a very liberal anti-gun household. When I was in my mid 20's I purchased a blackpowder replica cowboy gun on a whim after watching a Clint Eastwood movie. Blackpowder guns are not controlled by the govt. and can be bought mail order. Its like owning a working antique. Then I started reading about guns and the arguments for and against guns.

My belief, one that stands today is that the anti-gun crowd in most cases is lying and twisting statistics to support their agenda. While I may not agree with everything the NRA says their use of statistics and data is far more honest then the anti-gun crowd. The anti-gun groups love to lampoon the NRA and use well chosen soundbites to make them look like fringe whackjobs. The media is happy to comply. What you don't hear in the media is when pro-gun groups pick apart the anti-gun statistics and arguments to show that they are largely false.

Do a search on Michael Bellesiles, a discredited anti-gun author/professor. He actually fabricated, as in, not a word of truth a very well received book that was very anti-gun. It was sold as gospel, widely shouted by the NYT, and the rest of the general media, as the truth. It wasn't. But you never hear about the fact that it wasn't, do you? Thats one example, there are many more.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I am saying. I am asking you to look at the data for yourself. Not the headlines, not the general media, look at the arguments, data, statistics, etc. provided by BOTH sides. I did, and ended up on the side of the NRA. Yes, they can be a bit extreme but the anti-gun side is just as extreme if not more so.

Lastly, there is the Constitution. It quite plainly states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Many have argued that is not what it says, the Constitution is a living document, thats not what the founding fathers intended, etc. The fact is it must have been important to them as it is the SECOND amendment, right after the first which of course is freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has never made a definitive decision on the exact interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There is a case headed to the SCOTUS right now, the appeal of the DC gun ban that will likely be heard and the judgment will have to state once and for all, exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never been arrested. I work and I pay my taxes. I am involved in my community. I bristle at the insinuation that I am not somehow law-abiding since I think registration is a bad thing. In fact, I think I am MORE law abiding simply because I believe in the meaning of the Constitution and the rights it enumerates for me and all of us. Nothing is more un-American or criminal than giving up your rights because someone has an idea.

If you want the Constitution changed then fine, lets change it. I can live with that. But don't try and do an end run thats quasi-legal around the Constitution simply because you think your solution is a good idea and its expedient. Take a good look at what Alan Dershowitz (hes anti-gun) has to say about curtailing Constitutional rights with feel good laws. You may get the result you want now and register or ban of guns. The next step is someone else trying to curtail the next right, and the next, etc. Once precedent is set there will be no stopping the erosion of all.

RT

Again, I don't think you understand the depth of the problem:
There already exists a black market for firearms that are either illegal machine guns or altered to remove serial numbers. Doing either of these is already a Federal felony offense. Passing another law that makes unregistered firearms illegal really doesn't add anything. It is already quite illegal for a felon to possess a firearm and it doesn't stop them now.

If a criminal (assuming prior felonious conviction) is looking for a firearm he has a few places to get one. One is to steal one. Thats obvious, unfortunately many people don't lock up their guns. The second way is a "straw sale" where a friend that is legal makes the purchase for him. The third way is a private sale. Now if you made all sales have to go through dealers and registered all guns the private sale would no longer be an option. The straw sale and theft would continue. Note that both are now illegal anyway. Anyone can take a dremel tool and grind the serial numbers off any firearm in an hour or so. Thats what would start to happen, to protect the straw purchasers. Their defense is the gun was lost or stolen.

The other problem is guns are actually very easy to make. Anyone who is a decent machinist can make a gun in just a few hours. Passing a law to make all guns registered or even banned will simply produce a new black market.

I defy you or anyone else to produce a registration scheme that didn't end up with partial or full confiscation at some point. I also defy you to produce any evidence that registration or a ban lowered crime rates.

The UN has actually inferred that firearms purchased in the US find their way into the hands of terrorists and thats why we need global small arms control. Google Rebecca Peters for it. I ask why is it that an AK style/pattern rifle sells for @$350 here in the US and in parts of Pakistan the fully automatic version of the that rifle can be purchased for @$15-$20? So how is it possible that weapons are purchased here at even wholesale and sold so cheaply? I don't think so.... Although it is one way to fix the trade imbalance. ;)

Guns get special treatment since they were specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The meaning and reasons are quite clear. Cars were not mentioned. I'd rather be shot by a Glock that run over by a Buick.

RT

Don't get me wrong I respect the constitution and the requirements to change it. I never advocated some slime tactic or runaround legal procedure that would ban all guns. The registration system, if implemented as I intended, would never go after law-abiding gun owners. As far as outright bans go sometimes they do make sense locally. In cities with very high gang violence I think a gun ban makes sense if the gang members are mostly killing each other. A gun ban allows the local police to confiscate the guns and arrest these individuals preventively even if these gang members have no prior criminal record. Whether these local gun bans are in contradiction with the vaguely worded 2nd amendment is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. In the meantime, if you are truly a law abiding citizen as you claim to be, then you just have to respect and follow the local laws that are on the books or move somewhere else that's more to your liking. As far as the 2nd amendment being repealed (which BTW mentions "arms", not "guns"), wouldn't it take over 2/3 majority in congress, not to mention strong public support? I just don't see that happening. If in Canada or Britain they had a gun ban, I'm sure the majority of the public supported it. After all those are democratic countries too. I don't know about Britain, but last time I checked Canada still has a pretty high gun ownership and they're big into hunting. They just might have restrictions on where they can carry those guns, probably not in the public.

In summary there's no evidence that shows that a gun ban or plentiful guns always lead to more or less violence. Like I said each location is unique and it has more to do with the mentality of the people there, and less with whether they have guns. Guns are a very gray issue, not black and white like many people see them.

FYI I'm not strictly anti-gun, but I don't care for them either. I just want to feel and be safe. While it comforts me that most of my neighbors probably have guns and therefore burglaries are probably less likely in my neighborhood, it also concerns me how easy it is to get a gun and kill someone. It's definitely a double-edged sword issue for me.

Forgot to mention, regarding the 50 caliber sniper rifles, isn't that something like what those two killers in Virginia and surrounding states terrorized the population with about 5 years ago? Who the hell needs weapons like that or full automatics for self-defense at home or hunting? I fully support an outright ban on those weapons. If not, you might as well allow people to own RPG launchers, bombs and artillery.

Fine, that's you. However, the question is whether you can speak for all the other "gun control" people. That term is just an attempt at being benign for the msot part. If they did come outright to say "We want guns banned. End of story.", they won't get much traction. Therefore, they just say "We want to control it.". I have seen this tactic work before. In Singapore, guns are banned. Few things else are. Curfew? Nope. Alcohol? Nope. Public transportation shuts down around midnight. Taxis get big bucks for after midnight work. Cars? You probably can't afford it. Is there a curfew? No. Alcohol. "Persons under the age of eighteen are prohibited from consuming intoxicating beverages on the premises". What does this mean? Can my 6 yo son buy me a 6 pack? Sure. They tax the hell out of it though. Again, no ban. Just make it so difficult it becomes virtually impossible.

But they need to be committing a crime first. You can't go frisking every Tom, Dick or Harry because they wear gang colors. A cop can't ask you to go against the wall and search you for drugs or guns. So in theory, yes. Implementation is going to be difficult.

Again, can I ban it without changing the constitution? Sure. Say I put a $1000 tax on a gun sale. Did I change the constitution? No. It is simply a "user tax". Would most people be able to afford it? Probably not. Is it a ban? No. Do I make it impossible for you to do it? Sure.

Didn't you already admit that gun bans or making them plentiful won't change much? I can't stop someone from killing someone else. Might as well live in an area where the guns at least are a deterrent for the house breakers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a red-dot sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. It should be noted that this rifle is not generally considered a sniper rifle even though scoped versions of it are used in long distance shooting competitions for ranges up to 600 yards. The ability and distance of the shots do not meet the skill sets of a military sniper. None of the shots involved in the killings were particularly difficult and many professionals in the law enforcement and military communities resented the use of the term "sniper" to describe the shooters.

Who the hell needs guns like black powder for hunting too? People do shoot these guns and get a kick out of them. Is the modern gun more efficient? Sure. Why do they still dress up and shoot black powder then? Why do people hunt with them? What about bows and arrows? There are many who do shoot these guns for sport, target, etc, etc. If I wanted to play sniper, I'd use a 30-06. That cartridge has probably killed more deer than any other. Easy to get and use. 50 cal is way too big for that sort of action.

Yeah, but what's the potential for damage from a black powder gun? The reason for banning high-powered rifles and machine guns is obvious. I understand some may want these toys to play with innocently, but I think the risk to the public is just too great. Already in some places the police are being out-gunned by criminals. Is that really in the public's interest?

If our democracy mostly works as most of us believe, then it will ultimately be the people deciding the fate of guns. While a $1000 sales tax on guns might not require a constitutional change, it would still be extremely hard to pass in congress and even if congress passed it, those who voted for it would soon be voted out of office and the law would be reversed if the public didn't support it.

That's inaccurate. Criminals get plenty of guns through legal purchase. NY had a huge problem with the gun shows in the Southern states. People would go down and buy car loads of guns legally and sell them on the street back in NY.
Not to mention the ease of private sales. It's silly to think that limiting legal availability doesn't limit illegal availability. Of course, black market weapons would still exist, but with the .50 cal rifle as an example, where would a criminal get one if they were banned nationally? From warehouse and/or shipment theft, corrupt employees of said warehousing/shipping, and guns smuggled into the country from abroad. That would by nature limit supply vs. going to any store or gun show or private sale to obtain one.

The 'only disarms the law abiding' is a bad argument. Aside from the fact that it obviously limits supply, as evidenced by some posts already, some law abiding would switch to not law abiding if the rules changed.

That's not to say I think the .50 cal should or shouldn't be banned. I'm on the fence on where to draw the lines. I don't think people should be allowed to RPGs or claymore mines or M1 Abrams. A .50 cal, I don't know.

How so? Are they being used to commit crimes? How many 50 BMGs do you see floating around in Chevy Caprices? Those guns are hard to shoot and expensive too. Now, if I were to rob a bank, what would I use? My 357 Mag or my 500 S&W Mag? One of them I can get ammo at Wal*Mart. The other, I have to go to a larger gun store. Otherwise, what do you expect me to do with an empty gun? Hit you on the head with it as a club? Go "Bang" and expect you to drop dead?

That's nice, however you do realize that once a registration scheme is in place, whoever's in power after you still has access to that information. Giving the politicians power doesn't mean they will use it in the way you intend.

No, they don't. Have you seen the crime statistics for Washington, D.C. lately?

I disagree. I think taking away the means of self defense of those who are not gang members/criminals is a bad idea.

Many gang members are under 21. It is already illegal for those under 21 to have a handgun. Those gang members who have survived to age 21 often already have felony convictions. It is already illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun. Gang members almost always conceal their weapons, and even those few who might qualify don't bother getting CCW permits. In all states except Vermont and Alaska (neither of which has any major gang problems) it is illegal to carry concealed without a permit. Inner city police have lots of problems-lack of reasons to arrest gang members is not one of them.

Heller vs District of Columbia is headed for SCOTUS as we speak. And I don't find the wording of the second amendment to be the list bit vague.

That might be why I live in northern Nevada.


More guns=less crime. See Jon Lott

I agree with what tankdriver said, but again to clarify I'm not for banning all guns (I'm not saying tankdriver said so either). I also agree that we need to enforce the laws we already have, and that goes beyond guns (immigration comes to mind), but a few extra laws wouldn't hurt, like having to register and thus undergo background checks even when buying used guns.

aklim, yes high-powered/automatic weapons do get used in crimes. The Beltway "sniping" is just one example. Another one is the 1997 L.A. bank robbery with AK47's if I remember correctly. I just don't see the need for ordinary citizens to own such powerful weapons, but that's just my opinion.