DC gun ban, your thoughts?

[capitalj]

I think the term "gun haters" is simplistic and unproductive.

I also think the gun control issue is too complex to be reduced to "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" positions.

And I find it interesting that a thread about voluntary warrantless searches for illegal firearms, which seems to me to be more a 4th amendment issue, quickly turned to more a discussion of the 2nd amendment.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by capitalj I think the term "gun haters" is simplistic and unproductive. I also think the gun control issue is too complex to be reduced to "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" positions. And I find it interesting that a thread about voluntary warrantless searches for illegal firearms, which seems to me to be more a 4th amendment issue, quickly turned to more a discussion of the 2nd amendment.

You are correct, it really is a 4th amendment violation. The 2nd is just highly debated and will be forever until they finally lay down what it really means.

[capitalj]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin You are correct, it really is a 4th amendment violation.

I said issue, not violation, because there is room for debate. Do you consider it a violation even if a person aware of their rights allows the search?

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin This is something that many other people from other countries do not understand. Our government has the ability to police us, strip our rights, and call down martial law in any unjust manner. They have already chipped away at our personal freedoms and rights post 9/11.

Do you really think this isn't happening in other countries for the very same reason?

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Banning anything in our country does not guarantee it gets banned.

It does provide a means to sanction those who violate accepted social norms.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin You make the ATF larger to regulate illegal gun sales, and you have illegal gun sales because you out lawed them. No, I do not think everyone should own a gun, or carry a gun. I think only responsible people should.

What means, other than regulation, would provide a way to help keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people?

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin People think that if you ban guns or highly restrict them it will reduce violent crimes, and it won't.

Highly debatable.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Poverty is a bigger problem in our country right now than gun ownership and our government debates gun ownership to not deal with the bigger issue.

The government debates lots of things instead of poverty or other pertinent issues. And you seem to be pointing to the issue of poverty as a way to minimize the value of debate on gun control.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Our middle class is slowly becoming non existent and almost everything is being out sourced. You know how war boosts economy right? Puts tax dollars right back into our nation? Well, our military is out sourcing things these days and our economy has gone to crap.

Oh, a point of agreement.

[tlarkin]

If someone is not aware of their rights, does that make it OK to violate them?

I understand you have the right to have the police search your home. I guess if you want them to, you have every right to. I just don't understand it.

My comment about our government and our rights post 9/11, I guess my point was you have to live here to understand our views. I was not saying that doesn't happen in other countries, sorry for the confusion.

Quote: What means, other than regulation, would provide a way to help keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people?

This I have thought on some. Make it so all federally licensed arm deals, and state conservatory ranges, can go out and get certified to teach a gun safety course, which would be regulated at the state level. So, your state sets the standards. Then have each person go through these tests and training to become certified to carry a gun on their persons. I don't care what people do or own in their own personal home. I am more worried about an idiot carrying a gun and it accidentally discharging due to ignorance at the grocery store I shop at. You must pay for the training course, so private businesses can make money off their time, and or the state can use that money to put back in the program.

Violent crime typically happens in poor neighborhoods. If you take Kansas City for example, which is extremely dynamic, you can go from million dollar homes to the ghetto and government housing in a few miles travel. The rich neighborhoods have a lot less crime, they have a private security and more police. There aren't a lot of murders in that area.

You go several miles North and you find yourself in a place where murder happens, sometimes every day. Mostly by gun or knife. Me bringing up poverty was kind of saying it could be the root of the issue is all.

[NetworkMeUp]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin This is kind of scary in my mind... http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/H...d=1.1.1&sflg=1 Although, they aren't busting in people's homes yet with out warrant or probable cause, but who is to say that won't start happening? I feel we lose more rights every year, and it is getting worse and worse.

Our constitution! That's who...

Owning a personal firearm is a right, one set in place to protect ourselves against those who choose to do harm. I can only hope this DC gun ban doesn't become a hot trend, because in my opinion, it is unconstitutional to ban what is a citizen's right to have. This is obviously excluding those citizens with a criminal record, etc.. but you get the idea.

[aehurst]

Here's another article on what DC is doing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=58825

It is not possible to separate what they are doing from the right to own a gun. An illegal gun in DC is ANY handgun. This is being challenged in the Supreme Court, who has agreed to hear the case. The article clearly states:

"The district's perspective is that the Second Amendment only allows people to have guns in connection with service in a militia – not to own guns as an individual."

That's correct, DC is challenging directly the right to own guns.... any gun. And DC is continuing to confiscate so called illegal weapons while that right is being decided in the Supreme Court with constitutionally questionable tactic of voluntary searches with only limited immunity for the poor citizens tricked into giving up their rights.

[aehurst]

And in the meantime, Florida just passed "Take Your Gun to Work" legislation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/...lorida_guns_dc

[tlarkin]

Yeah I read that Florida thing today. I guess you never know someone could come to work and start shooting the place up.

[capitalj]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin If someone is not aware of their rights, does that make it OK to violate them?

Of course not.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin I understand you have the right to have the police search your home. I guess if you want them to, you have every right to. I just don't understand it.

You don't have to agree with their decision, just respect their right to it - and not try to take it away from them, just like you would expect others to respect your right to own a gun.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin This I have thought on some. Make it so all federally licensed arm deals (sic), and state conservatory ranges, can go out and get certified to teach a gun safety course, which would be regulated at the state level. So, your state sets the standards. Then have each person go through these tests and training to become certified to carry a gun on their persons.

Similar to drivers ed. - a reasonable proposition.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin I don't care what people do or own in their own personal home. I am more worried about an idiot carrying a gun and it accidentally discharging due to ignorance at the grocery store I shop at.

And yet, the home is where so so many deaths occur. I stopped going to a friend's house because, despite having children, he kept a loaded gun in the kitchen.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Violent crime typically happens in poor neighborhoods. If you take Kansas City for example, which is extremely dynamic, you can go from million dollar homes to the ghetto and government housing in a few miles travel. The rich neighborhoods have a lot less crime, they have a private security and more police. There aren't a lot of murders in that area.

From what I understand, there aren't as many guns, typically, in the wealthy neighborhoods, either. Go figure.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin You go several miles North and you find yourself in a place where murder happens, sometimes every day. Mostly by gun or knife. Me bringing up poverty was kind of saying it could be the root of the issue is all.

I don't disagree that poverty is tangled up in the root causes of violence, I grew up poor. But not too long ago kids used their fists instead of weapons. Times have changed. Eventually, laws need to catch up.

[aehurst]

Quote: Make it so all federally licensed arm deals, and state conservatory ranges, can go out and get certified to teach a gun safety course, which would be regulated at the state level. So, your state sets the standards. Then have each person go through these tests and training to become certified to carry a gun on their persons.

That is the way it works here for a concealed gun carry permit, except the trainers can be anybody certified by the state to provide the training (fairly stiff educ reqmnts to be a trainer.)

Hunters are also required to complete a training course, which includes gun safety as well as the law, before they can be issued a hunting license. (one time only on the training)

Weapons in the home are not regulated past the background check reqd when they are purchased and laws preventing ownership for felons, domestic violence, and such.

[tlarkin]

Here its a 1 day class and a fee, and you can get your CCW. While I am a safety nazi with my guns, not everyone else is. I am also not the type to keep a loaded gun in my kitchen, under my pillow, in the bathroom, etc.

I keep one gun near reach, which is not loaded, but has a mag with like 8 or 9 rounds in it that is loaded. I can get to my gun and load it and cock back the slide in probably under 25 seconds or less if I really wanted to. All my other guns are empty with the chamber cleared.

[aehurst]

Alas, we have a little one... 11. So the guns are tucked away out of site, unloaded, with ammunition stored in a different location (also out of sight and under lock and key). It'd take a while to get one ready to fire... not comfortable with that, but then not comfortable with them any other way either.

But, that doesn't stop me from loading one and slipping it in my pocket when I feel the need, which is pretty rare.

[GavinBKK]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin I can get to my gun and load it and cock back the slide in probably under 25 seconds or less if I really wanted to.

25 seconds??? You need some practice!

Even I can slide a mag into a nine milly and chamber a round in about 3 seconds.... Unless of course, you have to untangle all the lingerie first.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by GavinBKK 25 seconds??? You need some practice! Even I can slide a mag into a nine milly and chamber a round in about 3 seconds.... Unless of course, you have to untangle all the lingerie first.

Heh, it is in a case, in a night stand on the far side of my bed (away from the door) and I am taking into account I have to wake up roll over, fumble with the drawer in the dark, pull the case out, load the mag, cock it and kick ass.

I am sure I could do it faster if I felt threatened, but like I said, I don't like keeping a loaded gun near me.

Like I said earlier, I think I am going to end up buying a shot gun, and put probably some game buck in it, which would take down any human and not penetrate through walls. I'd keep that loaded in the closet and could access it in a matter of seconds.

I don't have kids though so I feel safe doing so at this point in time.

[aehurst]

Check out www.magsafeonline.com/faq.html for ammo that won't penetrate sheet rock (usually).

Glad to see there's not just the two of us who own guns.

I lock up the ammo, not the guns, because every young kid knows to an absolute certainty that you can fire a cartridge off with a hammer and a nail. With just a little thought, they'll figure out it takes nothing more than a piece of pipe (like a telescoping radio antenna) and a cap pistol to make their own firearm.... made my first one at 12. Fired .22 shorts.

Cartridges also provide access to gun powder which, again with just a little thought, can be used for a hand grenade (pipe, caps, gun powder, match heads, etc.). For that matter, a simple cannon can be constructed with a pipe, pipe cap, and a cherry bomb. Two pieces of telescoping pipe make a quick, effective shot gun.

Where I grew up, the weapon most common with the gangs was home made zip guns. All the bans and voluntary search warrants in the world are not going to solve the violence and weapons problem.

[capitalj]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst All the bans and voluntary search warrants in the world are not going to solve the violence and weapons problem.

Solve? I doubt it. There is no silver bullet solution (sorry, couldn't resist that) because there are so many other factors (poverty, etc.). Help reduce it? Done properly (and of course, constitutionally), yes. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At this point, I risk doing little more than repeat myself (I am prone to that, unfortunately). I should just read for now, in case anything new or productive is said while the thread peters out.

[aehurst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...co/scotus_guns

So there !

[kel101]

*Cough* its the illuminati!! *runs away scared*

[capitalj]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...co/scotus_guns So there !

My point may seem pedantic, but I believe it needs to be reiterated that the so-called D.C. gun ban was not a ban on all guns. The real issue was gun restrictions, not outright bans. From the article you linked:

Quote: The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

I know there are those who believe restrictions on gun ownership are tantamount to bans on gun ownership. I am not one of them.

I hope this decision does not lead to rapid erosion of sensible and effective gun restrictions.

[aehurst]

Quote: My point may seem pedantic, but I believe it needs to be reiterated that the so-called D.C. gun ban was not a ban on all guns. The real issue was gun restrictions, not outright bans. From the article you linked:

It was a ban on handguns, with those who have owned one for 32 years being grandfathered in... and they could not buy a new one. Eventually, that becomes a total ban on handguns.

It also required rifles & shotguns to be rendered useless for self defense.... disassembled and/or locked with a key.

Put those two together and what you have is the right to store guns for hunting purposes, but no right to keep them readily available for self defense.

Suppose the only thing the decision did outside WASHDC was to reaffirm the right to own a firearm and the right to own it for the purpose of self defense. In my view, that is huge.

Quote: I hope this decision does not lead to rapid erosion of sensible and effective gun restrictions.

If you are referring to machine guns and grenade launchers, I agree.

Gov's right to regulate, or even require a license for any gun, was left in place. Course, the right to not regulate or require a license was left in place, too.