Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[Undertow]

Correction, for those who might think this constitutes a "loophole". There is no mandatory Federal NICS (background) check for private party sales, just like any other private party sale, at any other location, of any other inanimate object. Particular state laws may still apply.

Firearms purchased from a licensed gun dealer always require a NICS background check and must conform to all other Federal laws, wherever purchased.

Thank you for the correction! I forgot about that part!

 

[Tango Yankee]

So what it boils down to is that there should be absolutely no restrictions at all on who can purchase a firearm, the type of firearms that can be purchased, the number of firearms that can be owned, nor should there be any restrictions on carrying said firearms at any time, in any place, because the Second Amendment said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Would it be preferable, then, for everyone in the United States to be armed at all times?

Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

And again, the question is, do we trust people with freedom until they prove they aren't responsible or do we force them to appeal to an authority for permission to live?

Look at how our system is set up, it defines what the government can't do to restrict individuals, it doesn't list what the people can.

Does that question apply only to those activities addressed by the Founding Fathers or the freedom to engage in any activities whether or not they are protected by the Constitution?

 

[Fatdutchman]

Would it be preferable, then, for everyone in the United States to be armed at all times?

Tom

You said it, not me! lol


I'm actually NOT a constitutionalist (me and Patrick Henry). I'm a "Confederationist". The Articles of Confederation is the lawful form of government for the united States of America. That being said, the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights (once again, demanded by those who weren't wild about the constitution) are the 9th and the 10th. BY FAR the most important.

Amendment 9. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Whew, I'm through here. It's fun for a while, but it gets me all worked up.

I think I'll go outside and do some shooting tomorrow!

 

[Tango Yankee]

You said it, not me! lol

I take it that's a yes?

What would be the perceived benefit?

Do you think that is what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country--For everyone to be armed at all times?

Would you feel safer if everyone was armed?

Anyone can answer, not just Fatdutchman!

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Harp]

Does that question apply only to those activities addressed by the Founding Fathers or the freedom to engage in any activities whether or not they are protected by the Constitution?

Implicit in natural positivism and Enlightened reason bequeathed
through constitutional law, further clarity is gained through
common law and the Model Penal Code, which seeks to objectify the
more arcane aspect of common law decision; however, penumbra espousal
and consequent abandonment of the document itself invariably leads to erroneous
interpretation of all collective right and the imperil of same.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Implicit in natural positivism and Enlightened reason bequeathed
through constitutional law, further clarity is gained through
common law and the Model Penal Code, which seeks to objectify the
more arcane aspect of common law decision; however, penumbra espousal
and consequent abandonment of the document itself invariably leads to erroneous
interpretation of all collective right and the imperil of same.

Come again? In what way did that answer my question? What is the source and context of the quote? (I'm assuming it is a quote--I could be wrong)

It is a bit amusing that someone using language in this fashion would refer to "further clarity."

 

[Harp]

Come again? In what way did that answer my question? What is the source and context of the quote? (I'm assuming it is a quote--I could be wrong)

It is a bit amusing that someone using language in this fashion would refer to "further clarity."

The source is myself, sir; while the context is the underlying question posed
as regards individual rights as interpreted through Constitutional judicial process.
Further clarity in the law is rendered judicial opinion and additional penal guidance
written to establish uniform standard.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I take it that's a yes?

What would be the perceived benefit?

Do you think that is what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country--For everyone to be armed at all times?

Would you feel safer if everyone was armed?

Anyone can answer, not just Fatdutchman!

Cheers,
Tom

1. Not sure I understand the first question fully. Is it, "What would be the perceived benefit of everyone being openly armed? Then I would say it would be a very strong deterrent to potential criminals.
2. I think the founding fathers were counting on the general good sense of the average person, to be armed when they needed to be armed, in times of national emergency for example, or the fact that many people still lived in a wild frontier full of dangers, and so they needed to be armed at all times.
3. The point is moot. Everyone is pretty much armed,...tacitly. With the right to own firearms given to every citizen, one could never really know who is armed or who is not at any given time.
I want to thank everyone for keeping my poll, and subsequent potentially highly charged discussion civil.
I had thought twice about posting it initially, but I meant it only to be a poll as to the approximate percentage of gun ownership, so I am absolved of any rabble rousing.
(Consider this as my official disclaimer. [angel] )

 

[Harp]

It is a bit amusing that someone using language in this fashion would refer to "further clarity."

Pay me no mind, bro.

 

[Tango Yankee]

1. Not sure I understand the first question fully. Is it, "What would be the perceived benefit of everyone being openly armed? Then I would say it would be a very strong deterrent to potential criminals.
2. I think the founding fathers were counting on the general good sense of the average person, to be armed when they needed to be armed, in times of national emergency for example, or the fact that many people still lived in a wild frontier full of dangers, and so they needed to be armed at all times.
3. The point is moot. Everyone is pretty much armed,...tacitly. With the right to own firearms given to every citizen, one could never really know who is armed or who is not at any given time.
I want to thank everyone for keeping my poll, and subsequent potentially highly charged discussion civil.
I had thought twice about posting it initially, but I meant it only to be a poll as to the approximate percentage of gun ownership, so I am absolved of any rabble rousing.
(Consider this as my official disclaimer. [angel] )

1. Armed, whether openly or not. Is this truly a desired state? Yes, I suppose it may deter some criminals; others may just shoot and then rob you. As I think I mentioned earlier, it would be an interesting social experiment to have everyone armed. Would there be fewer or more shooting deaths (both accidentaly and deliberate?) I tend to think more-people do awfully stupid things when they're angry or had a few drinks.

2. Perhaps, but I think the Founding Fathers would have preferred the US to have grown into a country where the citizens did not feel a need to carry a weapon at all times, such as walking down the streets of their city.

3. No, it's not a moot point. Although, in theory, anyone could be carrying, the reality is that very few people actually do--and everyone knows that. Personally, I'd be a lot more worried about my own safety if everyone carried.

It would be different if I believed that everyone would act responsibly, get training, practice, give some actual thought to the responsibility of owning a firearm, etc. Unfortunately, I can sit on my front porch and watch people go by that I'd feel fairly safe assuming would do none of those things.

In the end, despite all the discussion, I don't think anyone on the "pro-gun" side will admit that maybe, just maybe, there are more-or-less law-abiding citizens out there that probably should not have a gun available at all times while I am not going to come to the conclusion that having everyone venture out in public heavily armed would be a good thing.

I still think that as far as violent criminals go, we're not going to solve that problem just by building more jails. There are underlying social and cultural issues that need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed long-term. That won't happen as long as people put down helping our fellow man as being something unworthy of doing. In the meantime, it's not just for petite women that the gun is the great equalizer--it's the great equalizer for the small, skinny kid who decides they haven't got anything to lose and gives holding someone up a go.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Viola]

I still think that as far as violent criminals go, we're not going to solve that problem just by building more jails. There are underlying social and cultural issues that need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed long-term. That won't happen as long as people put down helping our fellow man as being something unworthy of doing. In the meantime, it's not just for petite women that the gun is the great equalizer--it's the great equalizer for the small, skinny kid who decides they haven't got anything to lose and gives holding someone up a go.

Agreed, as far as it goes. We do have social and cultural issues that need to be addressed. But what do we do in the meantime? How do we move towards that?

That kid is a ticking timebomb in any case. He's mad, and when you're that angry there's a whole lot of ways to take it out on the world. You know what the rage is around here? Dousing your girlfriend or the house that she's in with gasoline and setting her afire. Often there's already a restraining order in place, but those things...don't do a whole lot.

Maybe we need gas control?

-Viola

 

[Tango Yankee]

The source is myself, sir; while the context is the underlying question posed
as regards individual rights as interpreted through Constitutional judicial process.
Further clarity in the law is rendered judicial opinion and additional penal guidance
written to establish uniform standard.

I didn't have an underlying question. I asked whether or not Carebear's question, "And again, the question is, do we trust people with freedom until they prove they aren't responsible or do we force them to appeal to an authority for permission to live?" applied only to those freedoms specifically protected by the Constitution or to any activities. A fairly simple question.

Unfortunately, it's that "interpretation" thing that starts mucking things up. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a reasonably intelligent guy with somewhat varied life experiences, but I don't think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the intent that they would need to be "interpreted." Quite frankly, if something that is written needs to be "interpreted" and it doesn't refer to being changed from one language to another, there's something wrong with it to begin with. All the parsing of words and "interpreting" is being used for is to come up with whatever version the interpreter is looking for.

The Bill of Rights are admirable in their simplicity. I think they were crafted to say exactly what they say--not to hide any additional meanings. I believe that if the Founding Fathers were concerned with all aspects or reasons to keep and bear arms beyond the use in a well regulated militia the Second Amendment would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they addressed only the one issue. More than likely that was due to the fact that at that time the other reasons to keep and bear firearms were pretty much taken for granted.

Things change. I believe the Constitution was meant to be a living document, one that would be changed and updated as needed. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't have provided for a means to further amend it. Unfortunately, the sad political reality is that getting any sort of amendment passed these days would probably be impossible. The result of this is the perceived need to "interprete" these clearly written, carefully crafted sentences in order to have them fit current situations.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Diamondback]

That kid is a ticking timebomb in any case. He's mad, and when you're that angry there's a whole lot of ways to take it out on the world. You know what the rage is around here? Dousing your girlfriend or the house that she's in with gasoline and setting her afire. Often there's already a restraining order in place, but those things...don't do a whole lot.

Maybe we need gas control?

I'm pretty sure that's not what the Doors meant with "come on baby, light my fire." And that "torch a girl" craze is a big part of why disarmament is such a bad idea--would you try such a thing on a girl who was ready to center-punch you with a .357? I know I wouldn't... then again, I'm not the type to play with matches anyway...

 

[Tango Yankee]

Agreed, as far as it goes. We do have social and cultural issues that need to be addressed. But what do we do in the meantime? How do we move towards that?

That kid is a ticking timebomb in any case. He's mad, and when you're that angry there's a whole lot of ways to take it out on the world. You know what the rage is around here? Dousing your girlfriend or the house that she's in with gasoline and setting her afire. Often there's already a restraining order in place, but those things...don't do a whole lot.

Maybe we need gas control?

-Viola

The only gun control I've advocated is that of automatic weapons and that I think people should be required to have gun safety training if they're going to own a weapon. We're way past the point where trying to initiate a wholesale ban on guns would have any effect on the situation. That's why I say we need to address the underlying issues that lead to such violent crime and that it would be a long-term (over generations, not just a few years) effort. Unfortunately, we as a nation don't seem all that interested in doing so.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Diamondback]

TY, we have gun control of full-autos. It's called NFA of 1934, requires a federal permission slip to own anything fully-automatic. And GCA '68 bans any import of full-autos, and FOPA '86 banned any further production of non-LEO civilian full-autos. Plus the 20-some states who've banned 'em outright, and many others require an OK from state agencies...

 

[J.S.Udontknowme]

Can we see more pictures of guns that people own. I'd post mine but I have to find a digital camera.

Nothing fancy but here are a few of my revolvers.

 

[Tango Yankee]

TY, we have gun control of full-autos. It's called NFA of 1934, requires a federal permission slip to own anything fully-automatic. And GCA '68 bans any import of full-autos, and FOPA '86 banned any further production of non-LEO civilian full-autos. Plus the 20-some states who've banned 'em outright, and many others require an OK from state agencies...

One can be an advocate for something that's already in place...

 

[Lincsong]

I don't see the need to have licensing for handguns or rifles. It's just silly and assumes that everyone is a clutz. Licenses are not required to purchase gasoline, knives, axes or candles. Or for that matter pieces of cloth that can be used to strangle someone. Owning a gun is like owning any other piece of property or equiptment. It can be used anyway the user wishes it to be used and no amount of training, licensing, background checks or waiting periods is going to stop that.

There are parts of this country where people walk around armed and these are the places with less crime, less murders and NO, shoot 'em ups like we see in cartoons. This theory that all of a sudden we're going to have Dodge City by allowing people to carry concealed weapons is patently false and borderline hallucinogenic.

Yes, there are societal issues that must be addressed, but I don't want to get fftopic: . I'd rather talk about and see what guns people own and how they like it's grip, feel, recoil etc.

 

[Lincsong]

Nothing fancy but here are a few of my revolvers.

Thanks for posting and keeping ON TOPIC. These are some mightly fine looking revolvers.