[Loki]

From the outset I noted I did not have a single clear philosophy on what to do (if anything) let alone being on a band wagon to do any specific thing.

Maybe you should reread what you wrote.

"I see some merit in restricting a lot of gun types, making them illegal."

"I see little harm in outlawing the guns without legitimate peaceful function."

Google "Fudd." It's a term that refers to hunter-type gun owners who feel fully justified in owning guns with "legitimate peaceful functions" but have no problem outlawing evil black rifles and handguns. You've encapsulated the Fudd stance perfectly. Even included the hypocritical "I can own a handgun but no one else should."

As for hurting your feelings, meh. Take an asinine, hypocritical political stance, expect a response. Or maybe you could actually reflect on the hypocrisy of your position? I won't hold my breath.

[Loki]

The founders wrote extensively that the militia was all the people not a National Guard or anything of the sort.

All the people, like in Switzerland (except conscientious objectors, who have to do other stuff for twice the duration of the militia service). A people's "well-regulated" militia needs a baseline of structure and training, even if it is for all the people. Otherwise it has no real value as a militia.

You're not an American so I wouldn't expect you to know the history of the 2nd Amendment. The final text of the amendment is convoluted, the first draft was clearer:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=227

And if you read the writings of the Founders, and almost all subsequent court rulings, it's clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Organized state militias are a separate clause.

We also have state constitutions. Here's the relevant passage from Oregon's Constitution (written in 1857):

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power

Unequivocal.

The gun banners have the option of changing both the federal constitution and the various state constitutions. We have a process for that. That would require honesty about their true intentions, though, and they can't have that.

[Quinny]

Think there is some evidence in this thread that there will never be a breakdown of civilisation in the USA.

[Newfie]

Loki, here is the actual quote.

Not arguing for or against, just what I observe.

It strikes me that th answer is to regulation is this....many are for it...once they have their own guns. It is looking like it will not happen as long as we are afraid of them, insert group name as needed. Thus it all seems a moot point. We are an Armed society, we must deal with it.

Here is what you wrote as a quote from me.

"I can own a handgun but no one else should."

I was reportin an OBSERVATION, not a POSITION.

It is very bad form to miss quote someone.

What IS true is that I don't share your hard core desire to protect your specific position. It is true that I think the situation is more complicated and nuanced than you see it.

I am not convienced that there should or should not be some regulation, your attacks do nothing to persuade.

in any case, there is a growing movement in the US toward gun control. Those who strongly favor it (to put it mildly) are often those who understand guns in the least. That means that if there is some legislation it is likely to be poorly thought out and ineffective, probably doing more harm than good. Neither you or I will like that outcome.

[Hawkcreek]

in any case, there is a growing movement in the US toward gun control. Those who strongly favor it (to put it mildly) are often those who understand guns in the least. That means that if there is some legislation it is likely to be poorly thought out and ineffective, probably doing more harm than good. Neither you or I will like that outcome.

It looks to me that there is a growing movement in the US "Media" towards gun control -not in the US per se.
In my opinion, the discussion of types of guns to ban, totally discount the view of the people that the right to bear arms is primarily to stand up to the government, if they exceed their powers. To me, that means we should have any type of firearm that we want.
"Do I have a right to feel safe".
The answer is still NO. Safety is an illusion.
We all came from a evolutionary background of strife and death. Starbucks and cell phones hasn't really changed that in any way. We have to provide our own sense of safety.
To me, access to a gun helps a bit in that respect. But then, I have ridden a motorcycle for over 50 years, so I kind of think safety is over-rated.

[Cog]

There is not a growing movement among the majority of state legislatures towards more gun control. Much to the contrary, except in certain east and west coast blue states. Just look up how many states now have conceal carry versus how many did ten years ago.

The US Constitution does not establish safety, it establishes and protects freedom. The two things are often at odds and rightly so.

[Newfie]

It surprised me, but it seems it is true that there is a steady hardening towards gun rights overall.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/ ... #gunowners

[Loki]

Loki, here is the actual quote.

Not arguing for or against, just what I observe.

It strikes me that th answer is to regulation is this....many are for it...once they have their own guns. It is looking like it will not happen as long as we are afraid of them, insert group name as needed. Thus it all seems a moot point. We are an Armed society, we must deal with it.

Here is what you wrote as a quote from me.

"I can own a handgun but no one else should."

I was reportin an OBSERVATION, not a POSITION.

It is very bad form to miss quote someone.

What IS true is that I don't share your hard core desire to protect your specific position. It is true that I think the situation is more complicated and nuanced than you see it.

I am not convienced that there should or should not be some regulation, your attacks do nothing to persuade.

in any case, there is a growing movement in the US toward gun control. Those who strongly favor it (to put it mildly) are often those who understand guns in the least. That means that if there is some legislation it is likely to be poorly thought out and ineffective, probably doing more harm than good. Neither you or I will like that outcome.

Wait, so you didn't write:

"I see some merit in restricting a lot of gun types, making them illegal."

"I see little harm in outlawing the guns without legitimate peaceful function."

Someone must have hacked your account. You should notify admin.

You said you wanted to outlaw guns "without legitimate peaceful function," by which you obviously mean hunting. That includes the handguns you've admitted to owning. 1911s have no "legitimate peaceful function," their primary function is to kill human beings. Yet you seem to feel justified in owning them, despite wanting to ban them (for people other than yourself). If that's not the definition of hypocrisy I don't know what is.

I am not convienced that there should or should not be some regulation

I refer you to your previous statements:

"I see some merit in restricting a lot of gun types, making them illegal."

"I see little harm in outlawing the guns without legitimate peaceful function."

How many times do I have to quote you before you own up to your own statements?

[davep]

The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to be able to provide resistance to the Government. Banning guns without a peaceful use goes counter to the heart of that no matter what you may think of guns.

Sure, there should be some tightening of the law to stop the mentally ill or felons getting their hands on guns in gun fairs etc. Maybe insisting guns are properly stored when not carried (to avoid having children/intruders get hold of them). And some basic marksmanship/safety training for any potential militia-man would appear to be a minimum level to ensure you don't blow your own foot off (and potentially to remove some of the mystique surrounding guns). And if somebody threatens to use their guns on another, the guns should be removed straight away by the police (as they do in Switzerland) to de-escalate the situation.

These are basic common sense and the middle two may not even need to be legislated for if people had common sense. But it's evident that a lot of people don't seem to possess any. Oh, and don't ever get your guns out when you're drunk. Never do it; your judgement is impaired.

[Newfie]

Loki,

I have clearly and repeated said that I don't have hard, fast, set positions.

I am open to discussion and changing my mind. I'm expressing my thoughts at the moment.

You seem to be reading my statements as if I were trying to force an opinion down your throat. I'm not. I was trying to have a conversation to clarify my own position.

"I see some merit in ....."
"I see little harm...."

These are not extreme statements of doctrine.

When you try to make them so you are polarizing the conversation. That is not a good way to convince someone of your position or intentions.

Now you can be offended by my response, or take it as intended, some well meaning clarification and advice. Your choice.

I'm not trying to poke you in the eye. I hope you can see that. I'm willing to listen to counter arguments. Cog actually did a very good job of stating his position and has swayed my opinion on concealed carry.

[Revi]

Remember that the name of this thread is "Do I have a right to feel safe?". I am feeling a little less safe since the passing of a law allowing concealed carry for anyone who isn't a felon. This means that a lot more people are armed, which some might see as a good thing. I am not so sanguine about my fellow humans.

[Cog]

Remember that the name of this thread is "Do I have a right to feel safe?". I am feeling a little less safe since the passing of a law allowing concealed carry for anyone who isn't a felon. This means that a lot more people are armed, which some might see as a good thing. I am not so sanguine about my fellow humans.

Instead of relying on feelings, you should attempt to find out whether conceal carry permit holders commit crimes to a larger extent than the general population of the United States. Why rely on paranoia and feelings when you can rely on data?

[Newfie]

Cog,

You have largly convinced me on concealed carry.

Where do you stand on the unrestricted sale of firearms? I too have worked in less desirable locations. Those areas seem to be among at a high rate. I'm concerns with these street toughs free access to any variety of weapon.

[Cog]

Cog,

You have largly convinced me on concealed carry.

Where do you stand on the unrestricted sale of firearms? I too have worked in less desirable locations. Those areas seem to be among at a high rate. I'm concerns with these street toughs free access to any variety of weapon.

What makes you think that guns sales are unrestricted? Every gun sold by an FFL, is by law, ran though the NIC background check system. Some states add a more restrictive state background check as well.

[Lore]

Cog,

You have largly convinced me on concealed carry.

Where do you stand on the unrestricted sale of firearms? I too have worked in less desirable locations. Those areas seem to be among at a high rate. I'm concerns with these street toughs free access to any variety of weapon.

What makes you think that guns sales are unrestricted? Every gun sold by an FFL, is by law, ran though the NIC background check system. Some states add a more restrictive state background check as well.

This by law is a requirement for stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders to perform background checks of buyers and to record sales.

The following is the loophole that everyone should be concerned about closing.

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks of buyers to verify that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification. Federal law prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or to someone they know, or have reason to believe, is prohibited from owning a firearm. Gun laws in the United States by state determine where the gun show loophole exists in addition to federal law. As of September 2015, 18 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

You can check your state here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... s_by_state

As a side note. Badger Guns in Wisconsin just got nailed 6 million dollars yesterday for selling a firearm that was later used in a crime through an illegal straw purchase to the perpetrator.

[Cog]

Any attempt to regulate private party transactions will not work without a gun registry. And gun owners will not register their guns. The non-compliance rate is about 80% in states which have a registry in place. The left knows this as well as the NRA. Which is why universal background checks, on a federal level, is opposed by the NRA, as well as people who look ahead at such matters.

Now if you want to open up the NIC system to anyone who wants to use it so they can check on the status of a potential buyer, I'm ok with that. But that is not what the anti's want. They want an FFL involved if I sell a gun to my best friend or even my own wife. People who I know are not felons or otherwise prohibited. I know that I won't comply with it and neither will any of the gun owners that I know. There are good reasons why gun owners mistrust the government to monitor their gun transactions. Just look at what Snowden uncovered about governmental monitoring.

[davep]

I'm not sure this will work in the US, but it could be potentially possible to have a card of aptitude rather than a register of weapons. So rather than doing a sale-by-sale background check, just do it once every few years for the individual, and the person can then go and buy guns and ammo wherever he or she wants with his "I'm not a felon or a nutcase" card. Whether sales of guns should be registered or not is a different question and would seem superfluous in this scenario.

This would be more expedient than a gun register and background checks for sales (and could also be required for private sales), but as it would be required to have a card prior to buying a gun it may fall foul of the 2nd amendment.

[Cog]

@davep

Illinois has exactly that system in place in the form of a FOID card. When you initially apply for your FOID card, the Illinois State Police runs you through whatever comprises their data base and you are issued your card which is valid for ten years. From my understanding of the system, every valid FOID card is checked every day against mental health records and felony convictions. Without this card, you can not purchase guns, ammunition, or to possess the same.

If you become a prohibited person you are sent a letter telling you to deliver your FOID card within 24 hours to law enforcement. If you do not, you will be getting a visit from the cops. Along with this visit and when you give up your FOID card, you are instantly prohibited from owning firearms and must either deliver up your guns to law enforcement, or sell them to a FFL, or give or sell them to another FOID card holder.

With regards to private sales, I can only sell to another FOID card holder and must keep a written record of that sale for 10 years. Illinois just installed an electronic system whereby I can put in the FOID card number and see if it is valid. That proves to me as the seller that you are not a prohibited person and I am not liable if you do something retarded with the gun I just sold you, if I keep record of the check I made on you.

Does this system above work? Nope. Murder rates in the city of Chicago are astronomical. People who do have a valid FOID simply buy guns and give or sell them to their criminal buddies or relatives. Or their criminal buddies steal them from homes or cars. Although I grew up with the FOID system and am somewhat used to it, it is an infringement and just forces the law abiding to jump through hoops while not solving the underlying problem.

Gun violence is committed by two broad ranges of people. The mentally ill and the criminal class. They are already a prohibited class of people from possessing firearms. No cards, permits, or registration schemes are going to stop these folks from using a gun if they can get one.

If you get rid of the war on drugs, you eliminate the profit motive and you eliminate a lot of the resultant gun violence associated with the trade. Not entirely as some people prefer to steal and rob as opposed to working. But you can eliminate a lot of it. Make the use of any firearm in the commission of a crime a severe prison sentence and actually enforce it. We are not even enforcing that part of the law right now and charges are frequently dropped on the gun charges in plea bargains.

[davep]

Interesting. So it *may* work better if co-ordinated with a saner drug policy.