Gun Control Debate in wake of AZ shooting

[RoadToad]

Hindsight is 20/20. Sure, it looks now like this guy should have been prevented from getting the gun, but I don't see how you could devise and implement a system that would pick up somebody like him, yet not be overly burdensome on people wanting to legally buy and sell guns.

You guys obviously know a lot about guns and gun safety. And of course you're right, no reasonable person is going to carry around a pistol under their coat if they don't know how to use it. I'm with Geo on that, I'd never consider do it without taking some classes first. But while reading this thread I keep thinking back to 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional. Remember that? They ruled that in the Second Amendment, where it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the words "the people" means you and I, not "The People" as in the United States of America, ending a decades-old debate on the subject. So now, the problem as I see it is that while no reasonable person would carry a concealed firearm without proper instruction, unfortunately, that instruction costs money, and if you start making it a legal requirement to obtain that instruction, then you're changing a Constitutionally guaranteed right into a privilege. It's unconstitutional for the same reason that requiring someone to get a permit to vote was ruled unconstitutional; it discriminates against those who can't afford to do so.

[kydonky]

Resposible gun enthuziast need to be careful how this issue is approached.

The Constitution is a changing document. They repealed proabition, there has been recent talk of repealing the 18th amendment that gives citizenship.

Any amendment or the constitution itself can be changed or amended.

This is why I support reasonable gun control laws and regulations. Last thing we need is irresponsible people doing stupid things with guns that jeprodize the rights of everyone.

Times are a changing. Most of us don't rely on game for food now, the Indians do not seam to be any threat anymore. So be responsible and support reasonable laws and regulations and oppose burdensome laws that have no clear benifit.

[ckline2006]

Resposible gun enthuziast need to be careful how this issue is approached.

The Constitution is a changing document. They repealed proabition, there has been recent talk of repealing the 18th amendment that gives citizenship.

Any amendment or the constitution itself can be changed or amended.

This is why I support reasonable gun control laws and regulations. Last thing we need is irresponsible people doing stupid things with guns that jeprodize the rights of everyone.

Times are a changing. Most of us don't rely on game for food now, the Indians do not seam to be any threat anymore. So be responsible and support reasonable laws and regulations and oppose burdensome laws that have no clear benifit.

The 2nd Amendment isn't in place for us to put game on the table.

It's in place to protect US citizens from a tyrannical government.

The founders of our government had more experience at dealing with bondage than we can fathom and used their first hand experience to attempt to prevent that situation from arising again. Those 230yr+ old documents don't carelessly throw words around and if strictly adhered to frame one of the grandest societies imaginable.

[walkeraviator]

The second ammendment guarantees you the right to own a firearm. It does not give you the right to carry concealed. The right to carry concealed is indeed a priveledge and not a right. This is again why I say mandatory training requirements for concealed carry permit holders have no bearing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Yes the constitution is a changing document. But only for things to be added. Things that have been added, have been repealed in the past, but the original 10 ammendments... the bill of rights... and the body of the original document itself are unchanging and absolute. If it were not that way then the founding fathers may have well not written it at all.\


(in case you havent noticed i am a believer in strict interpretation of the words as they were written. basically I am a libertarian.)

[kydonky]

The second ammendment guarantees you the right to own a firearm. It does not give you the right to carry concealed. The right to carry concealed is indeed a priveledge and not a right. This is again why I say mandatory training requirements for concealed carry permit holders have no bearing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Yes the constitution is a changing document. But only for things to be added. Things that have been added, have been repealed in the past, but the original 10 ammendments... the bill of rights... and the body of the original document itself are unchanging and absolute. If it were not that way then the founding fathers may have well not written it at all.\


(in case you havent noticed i am a believer in strict interpretation of the words as they were written. basically I am a libertarian.)

Walker, yes the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights, however, it is subject to amendment just as the 18th amendment was changed by the 21st amendment.

The bill of rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution) were presented with the constitution when ratified. There was debate then as to weather the bill of rights should actually be part of the constitution, however, it was decided to include the bill of rights as amendments and not part of the body of the constitution. The bill of rights secures much of our basic liberties, but it is possible to amend them. I still think we would serve ourselves well by supporting gun control legislation that is not burdensome yet has clear benifit. Examples alreday in place are mental compidence, felony conviction and even gun registration laws in some states. (although I think some of these ARE burdonsome).

Anyway I think reasonable gun control is needed. Otherwise we may all find ourselves in a local arms race. If felons are allowed to have guns (not all of their basic civil rights are forfited with a felony conviction so this is possible without gun legislation) and criminals have automatic weapons, explosives, etc. it would quickly get out of control.

[RoadToad]

The second ammendment guarantees you the right to own a firearm. It does not give you the right to carry concealed. The right to carry concealed is indeed a priveledge and not a right. This is again why I say mandatory training requirements for concealed carry permit holders have no bearing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Yes the constitution is a changing document. But only for things to be added. Things that have been added, have been repealed in the past, but the original 10 ammendments... the bill of rights... and the body of the original document itself are unchanging and absolute. If it were not that way then the founding fathers may have well not written it at all.\


(in case you havent noticed i am a believer in strict interpretation of the words as they were written. basically I am a libertarian.)

"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."

If you believe in a strict interpretation of the words, then you must understand that the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to "keep and bear arms," and nowhere in it does it say that those arms have to be in plain sight. In fact, it doesn't just say that you have that right, it goes so far as to say that that right "shall not be infringed," meaning no if's, and, or but's. So the statement, "You're allowed to carry a weapon, BUT you have to carry it in plain sight" seems to me to be at odds with a strict interpretation of the wording of the Second Amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I've always believed in reasonable gun control, and have been labeled a bleeding-heart liberal for it before, even though I've never favored taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. So I'm really in a way playing devil's advocate here.

[Tom523]

The second ammendment guarantees you the right to own a firearm. It does not give you the right to carry concealed. The right to carry concealed is indeed a priveledge and not a right. This is again why I say mandatory training requirements for concealed carry permit holders have no bearing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Yes the constitution is a changing document. But only for things to be added. Things that have been added, have been repealed in the past, but the original 10 ammendments... the bill of rights... and the body of the original document itself are unchanging and absolute. If it were not that way then the founding fathers may have well not written it at all.\


(in case you havent noticed i am a believer in strict interpretation of the words as they were written. basically I am a libertarian.)

I believe you are wrong on your interpretation. Carry conceal is not a privilege. Where does it say a person must not conceal a weapon in the constitution? If I'm carrying a baby on a cold winter night out to the car and wish to have a weapon with me, I put it in my pocket, then while in the car, I slide it in a holster attached to my seat where it is ready if needed but hidden so as not to alarm anyone that gets squeamish at the sight of a weapon. There is nothing wrong with that. Did I prevent anyone from their pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. No, I just ensured the safety of my family during a trip to an area that has a reputation for violence against strangers. There are enough laws now. The government is intruding on our privacy more and more each day. I am also a Libertarian and believe that the government is making up laws and ordinances because they can make revenue from violations and sometimes politicians think they know better than "We the People". Look at the politician that introduced a bill before the Kentucky State senate that makes it illegal to smoke in a car with children in it. He said he got that idea from his wife because she saw someone in a car smoking with children and she was abhorred of it. We need to have politician control laws.

[HURRICANEBOB]

Being serious now. I think the govt can do a better job of getting guns out of the hands of felons and folks with violent crime histories. I wish the govt would focus on that, and back off the law abiding folks that need the protection from the punks when realistically, as "TOM" said, you can't carry a cop with you. I do think if the punks knew folks would shoot back, they might think twice. If not, there would be fewer punks.

Clowning now, the way things are going, it would be too long till when I go fishing, I'll prearrange air support, artillery registration points, insure the reserve is positioned, and the calls for fire are all pre-arranged.

"Big Bang 33, this is Hurricane, fire mission, TRP 233, punks in the parking lot, danger close aluminum boat, fire for effect, and I will adjust.....over"

[MrSplitshot]

And of course you're right, no reasonable person is going to carry around a pistol under their coat if they don't know how to use it. I'm with Geo on that, I'd never consider do it without taking some classes first.

I like to think that's true, but I have a feeling that it's not for many people. I would be willing to bet that there are more than a few folks out there who took the CCDW training course, got their permit, and have a loaded gun concealed on their person with <50 rounds experience firing it. They may have a limited knowledge of HOW to use it, but do they know WHEN to use deadly force legally? Both are just as important as the other.

Sure, you need to know how to use your gun...and you need to be able to put shots where you want them to go quickly...BUT...When should I use legal deadly force as a means of protecting my life or another person's life? That's the million dollar question. It can be answered with a whole bunch of pretty confusing scenarios. The CCDW training should spend more time on it...and I have nothing against mandatory refreshers. Hell, set up some online courses or something...maybe some state-produced training DVD's...it wouldn't really be that hard, would it? If you can't answer the million dollar question quickly, and under stress, then you are walking around with a license to fail if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. At least give it thought, read self-defense articles, and talk amongst your CCDW peers.

[kygorski]

Dime a dozen? Go to a flea market and price some of the junk they are peddling, go to a gun swap meet or show,So you'll see dime a dozen aint so. Now these prices are for supposedly legal resale weapons. Street prices are higher. And what can you buy? At a show pretty much anything your budget can afford.Well maybe not hand grenades.