Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[MagistrateChris]

Doggone it, I'm actually away from the computer at Cub Scout Camp for a few days, and you all get political/Second Amendment without me. Well, I'll at least comment that I appreciate the fact that this issue was fully discussed without name calling, venom, etc. On another board I frequent, where I was discussing prop handguns, I was called dozens of names because I admitted owning a real gun. Thanks for being different, and in many good ways.

 

[carebear]

Tom,

This is a website that pulls together the firearms laws for each state.

http://www.packing.org/

The issue of concealed (and open) carry in this country has been a very interesting subject for the past few decades. "Federalism at work" as carry laws have been loosened state by state.

Here's a current map (link). 20 years ago it was very beige and red.

http://www.packing.org/state/all_united_states/image.php?stateimage=117

The light blue shows "shall issue" states, where if you aren't prohibited from having a gun and meet the state standards, the state must issue you a permit.

The beige are "may issue", where there is some sort of discretionary authority who can turn you down for no legally-based reason.

The red states have no concealed carry allowed, though Wisconsin and Kansas both passed such bills last year but they were vetoed by the governor and the pro-carry legislators were literally a few votes (like 3) short of an override.

Many (most now) of the shall-issue states have reciprocity, where they recognize each other's permits as valid.

 

[Lincsong]

The 2nd Amendment, as was the others, was written in the wake of the American Revolution. Specific instances during the Revolution were very much in the minds of the delegates. Thus the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. So that Americans couldn't be hung, drawn, quarter and their bowels burned like the ancestors of Steve from Florida. Also, soldiers couldn't be housed in the private homes of people as was the practice during the Revolution where British soldiers could arrive at someone's house, eat their food, drink their booze, sleep in their beds and overflow their outhouses. Thus the 2nd Amendment dealt with the right to keep and bear arms, knowing full well, that perhaps the British may try to take back their lost colony or fight attacks against Americans by indigenous personnel.

 

[Fatdutchman]

There are two basic groups of people in America. Those who want liberty, and those who want license. Those who want liberty are dwindling to a distinct minority, and one day soon will be essentially extinct, much to the delight of the oligarchs in power.... Closely related is the division in America between urban and rural (or what's left of it). Rural America is diminishing quite rapidly, being swallowed up by high population with a decidedly different outlook on life and society.

Now, to really P.O. the second amendment people....the bill of rights was demanded by the people who were OPPOSED to the Constitution, specifically as a hedge AGAINST the constitution. The Constitution puts control of the militia squarely in the hands of the central government. This was deemed definitely not a good idea, as it left States defenseless against a tyrannical central government. The second amendment simply lays out the right that States have to field their own militias, for defense of their country, or, if necessary, for defense of their state against the tyranny of the central government (which was, and should definitely still be, a serious concern!). Individual gun ownership is not really included here, much as many would like to find it, and they will stretch and squeeze and twist whatever they can to put it there. In fact, the Pennsylvania delegation submitted an amendment which very beautifully laid out the individual right to own and use arms, but it was not adopted. Now, I can certainly say that the States recently have been very lax in their duties in fielding militias....



Frankly, the second amendment is not necessary to "guarantee" the individual right to own arms. If one feels he must find some governmental recognition of it, they can look to the 9th and 10th amendments. In the late 18th century in America, individual firearms ownership was not even a question. NO ONE had designs upon it, so it was not seen as a concern (which is actually unfortunate). Plus, many, if not most, of the individual state constitutions list the right of individuals to own firearms for defense. Besides, there are SO MANY readily available quotes, letters, speeches, etc. from the Founders that clearly state that they believed that individuals had the God given right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, that there really can be no logical argument against it. One might (quite wrongly) disagree with the Founders in this respect, but they can't really say that the founders didn't want every man armed.

As far as guns and crime? The story of "the easy access to firearms" being the cause of crime is a tired old saw. Let's see, 50 years ago, anyone could walk into a gun shop, and just as quickly walk out with most any gun they wanted...heck, 80 years ago, one could walk in and walk out with a machine gun! Of course, this period in time is known for its horrible crime rates. Murders on every street corner, robberies, carjacking....oh, wait, that's now, not then! :eusa_doh: Perhaps there are other reasons for higher crime today....


Personally, I don't think that anyone should use the "argument" of crime rates, how many times guns are used defensively, hunting, recreation, etc, in support of gun ownership. The RIGHT to own firearms, just like any other property, is quite sufficient, and using any other argument just shows insecurity. If you don't feel that having a God-granted right is enough, then you should just quit and go home!

"I love a good gun, for it makes a man feel independent and prepared for either war or peace." David Crockett, 1834

Doesn't that say it all?

 

[John in Covina]

Strict constructionists recognize that the "inalienable rights" are not granted by the constitution but are rights that are described as "from God" or what is often described as by the French as "Natural rights" that are simply there and hence are not granted by law or government. True rights from the Creator.

 

[Viola]

I don't own a firearm and I don't know any self-defense techniques, but should I make a decision I'd rather become an expert in martial arts than carry a gun.

I want to start Tae Kwon Do...but unless it makes me taller....lol

Actually I just paid for a gym membership so I shall be concentrating on just getting in good enough shape to run the heck away.lol

-Viola

 

[John in Covina]

THere are differences in how rights are seen also by people. For some the sense of Liberty and the concepts of Freedom are there for independance amd self determination while others look for a sense of equality but in the sense of equality of outcome. It is expressed by the feeling that those that do well have been some how unfair to those that underachieve or whose potential was low to begin with.

The difference is usually along the lines of those that may be described as wishing to "stand on their own two feet" and be independant and those that see us as all interdependant. A self made man or one that stands on their own two feet is the apex for the one side and the epitamy of evil for others.


A suggestion is that if you had a recurring poker tournament with the same 100 people that (for a while) you see the same group for the most part make it to the end of the playoffs. Their skill and knowledge sets them ahead of most. The mix would change a little over time as thru the learning process others would gain skill and knowledge to move ahead, but some would see this as unfair and ask that the group of winners be either handicapped or the perennial losers be given some type of advantage to maake it more fair...

 

[John in Covina]

Being a jerk to your family is not usually an offense that requires clogging up the prison system?-Viola

***********
That doesn't get to the heart of what I mean, do you know anyone that has had to go drug rehabilitation? Or do you believe that no one actually needs treatment?

 

[Diamondback]

And re martial arts vs. weaponcraft, there's a time and a place for each. Trust me, I live in the meth-lab capital of the USA, and when you're dealing with a fully-loaded methhead, you really are better off to center-punch with a .45 than to close in and "play" with 'em. (Remember, my range buddies are some of the star of COPS...)

Besides, each teaches you things that help you with the other--combat shooting and range/"bullseye" shooting are two entirely different fields...

 

[Fatdutchman]

John, (in my best Ed McMahon voice) You are correct, sir!

:eusa_clap

No, surely this is the meth lab capital here where I live. I believe that a few years ago, Muhlenberg county was considered to have the highest concentration of meth labs anywhere. Now I think they've gone metropolitan, and it now is Warren county... Actually, it's now pretty much everywhere....

 

[John in Covina]

Besides, each teaches you things that help you with the other--combat shooting and range/"bullseye" shooting are two entirely different fields...

**********
But remember, In traning, range shooting tends to precede any combat shooting, and one that has only range shooting would have an advantage over another that has neither.

 

[Viola]

***********
That doesn't get to the heart of what I mean, do you know anyone that has had to go drug rehabilitation? Or do you believe that no one actually needs treatment?

Yes, I do. I also know people who had to go to rehab for alcoholism. In neither case is it a large portion of the people I know who partake. In neither case do I think that because some people need help we should react by going "This is bad for you, so its illegal."

My parents are both diabetic, it doesn't mean I have a right to take away their cookies. Even if I give them both crap for it because I love them, I can't make their choices.

Lets step back from heroin for a minute; do you believe that marijuana is worth clogging the prisons?

-Viola

 

[Lincsong]

Personally, I don't think that anyone should use the "argument" of crime rates, how many times guns are used defensively, hunting, recreation, etc, in support of gun ownership. The RIGHT to own firearms, just like any other property, is quite sufficient, and using any other argument just shows insecurity. If you don't feel that having a God-granted right is enough, then you should just quit and go home!

"I love a good gun, for it makes a man feel independent and prepared for either war or peace." David Crockett, 1834

Doesn't that say it all?

Absolutely.:eusa_clap

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

It's not often this topic can be discussed without someone resorting to namecalling within the first couple of posts! :eusa_clap

Cheers,
Tom

Me too. I was away for a while, busy with business, and I return to a decent and orderly thread that I had feared would get political.
My thanks to all for your gracious civility and for your answers and insights into the issue. :eusa_clap

 

[John in Covina]

Yes, I do. I also know people who had to go to rehab for alcoholism. In neither case is it a large portion of the people I know who partake. In neither case do I think that because some people need help we should react by going "This is bad for you, so its illegal."

My parents are both diabetic, it doesn't mean I have a right to take away their cookies. Even if I give them both crap for it because I love them, I can't make their choices.

Lets step back from heroin for a minute; do you believe that marijuana is worth clogging the prisons?

-Viola

**************
So you don't know any one that was in for drugs. I do, and I have seen people literally fall apart from drug use. While alcohol can result in misery for the alcoholic , it does produce alot of misery for the friends and families of the alcoholic, that you cannot deny. Drugs can easilty do the same. I have seen friends of friends deterierate from the use of a variety of drugs. A long time ago several that went pretty much nuts from cocaine use and at the time everyone said it was a harmless recreational drug but not for these guys.
Here is a definate concept of a sliding scale, if you cannot figure out that some things are more dangerous than others or as to whether it affect a large percentage of people or not.

I have a couple of questions to come back with, in the mean time, as I ponder your questions and returns.

Let's say your grade school aged son goes to a grade school where one child was so highly alergic to peanuts that even a minute amount of particles in the air from their presence could trigger a life threatening reaction, would you be for or against banning all peanut products from the school he has to go to?

Is there ever a time in which it is necesary to protect someone from their desire to hurt themselves?

What happens when what is fine for you is bad for others? Like second hand smoke?

To decriminalize marijuana is probably a good idea for some but bad for others. Believe what you will, statistically for a portion of people it is just fine but for others, while it may not be bad, it is the stepping stone drug that they advance thru on their way to other drugs. It is alot like alcohol in which we know people should not drive or maybe operate heavy machinery. Smoking a joint and doing heavy chainsaw work or surgery sounds like a recipie for disaster. SO the thing is that no I don't believe that it should be classified as it is today, but I also believe that there are nefarious people at work supplying drugs and their actions are criminal. What was term Columbian necktie?

One man's poison is another man's prune danish. But if you had a friend that was sniffing "arsenic" would you say hey that's okay but don't move up to cyanide?

 

[Diamondback]

**********
But remember, In traning, range shooting tends to precede any combat shooting, and one that has only range shooting would have an advantage over another that has neither.

John, I wasn't referring to actual being-shot-at combat, but remembering that techniques for "competition" and "applied" shooting are different. Playing by Bullseye or IPSC rules in serious shooting means your next game might be Toe Tag with the coroner...

 

[John in Covina]

John, I wasn't referring to actual being-shot-at combat, but remembering that techniques for "competition" and "applied" shooting are different. Playing by Bullseye or IPSC rules in serious shooting means your next game might be Toe Tag with the coroner...

*****************
In good fashion, in the right competitions the range officer with you will be giving a lot of info back as to exposure, and the big difference between cover and concealment.

I was refering to the idea that most criminals are not practicing with the gun and having range time. While dry firing practice can be very helpful, range time alone would produce an advantage over the unskilled assailant. MAny people are working on presumptions of speed and ability. I have seen the knife thrower beat the gunman for draw and fire let alone hitting the target at close range about 8 or 9 times out of 10 and the gun man was pretty decent.

Experience and training adds up. Train as you fight & Fight as you train.

 

[Viola]

**************
So you don't know any one that was in for drugs. I do, and I have seen people literally fall apart from drug use. While alcohol can result in misery for the alcoholic , it does produce alot of misery for the friends and families of the alcoholic, that you cannot deny. Drugs can easilty do the same. I have seen friends of friends deterierate from the use of a variety of drugs. A long time ago several that went pretty much nuts from cocaine use and at the time everyone said it was a harmless recreational drug but not for these guys.
Here is a definate concept of a sliding scale, if you cannot figure out that some things are more dangerous than others or as to whether it affect a large percentage of people or not.

I have a couple of questions to come back with, in the mean time, as I ponder your questions and returns.

Let's say your grade school aged son goes to a grade school where one child was so highly alergic to peanuts that even a minute amount of particles in the air from their presence could trigger a life threatening reaction, would you be for or against banning all peanut products from the school he has to go to?

Is there ever a time in which it is necesary to protect someone from their desire to hurt themselves?

What happens when what is fine for you is bad for others? Like second hand smoke?

To decriminalize marijuana is probably a good idea for some but bad for others. Believe what you will, statistically for a portion of people it is just fine but for others, while it may not be bad, it is the stepping stone drug that they advance thru on their way to other drugs. It is alot like alcohol in which we know people should not drive or maybe operate heavy machinery. Smoking a joint and doing heavy chainsaw work or surgery sounds like a recipie for disaster.

One man's poison is another man's prune danish. But if you had a friend that was sniffing "arsenic" would you say hey that's okay but don't move up to cyanide?

How'd you get I don't know anyone who went to drug rehab from "yes, I do. I also..."? Not trying to get on your case but that's a total misread of what I said.

I also know functional drug-users who work and have lives.

Honestly were a child so desperately allergic to particles in the air (as opposed to just not eating that) I'd have to first wonder what he's doing at a public school in the first place. I wouldn't send my kid who had that to a public school? What if some kid freakin' breathes on him? Logically I should also be worried about what I feed my kid for breakfast before school so I can be sure my first-grader doesn't have peanut butter on his jeans?

I think protecting people from themselves is a slippery slope. I reserve the right to be an overprotective b**** to my family about anything I deem a hazard but I don't exactly think that's a governmental priviledge.

To decriminalize marijuana is good for some and bad for others? Keeping it criminal is also a mixed bag, I'd say more to the bad than good, but that's just me.

The thing about how I feel about my friends is, yes, I'd be highly highly tempted to handcuff my somebody I cared about to a wall before I let him hurt himself, but the thing is? I don't have that right. I'm not his legal guardian, he's not a child. I have to trust him. If he hurts somebody else, he has to pay for that. If he hurts only himself, I just have to love him and pray
and hope he wises the hell up before he kills himself.

-Viola

 

[John in Covina]

How'd you get I don't know anyone who went to drug rehab from "yes, I do. I also..."? Not trying to get on your case but that's a total misread of what I said. -Viola

*********
No, It is your answer did not include word one about drug rehab only alcohol and I asked specifically about drug rehab.

 

[Lincsong]

If he hurts somebody else, he has to pay for that. If he hurts only himself, I just have to love him and pray
and hope he wises the hell up before he kills himself.

-Viola

What about the innocent person he hurts? San Francisco and Oakland are full of people who started out using drugs recreationally and are menace's to society and to people walking on the street. Someone else should not be harmed merely because a selfish person wants to exercise his "right" to; smoke crack, inject horse or such. Why should all of society be walking on pins and needles, looking over their shoulders and adjusting their lives for the selfish few? Taking illegal drugs to an extreme is not the same as riding in the back of a pick-up truck, riding a bike without a helmet, driving without a selt belt, or shooting off piccolo pete's on Independence Day.