(Gun Rights, Protection & Ownership) Don't be a Victim

Reply

  #1  
Old 01-27-13, 12:10 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
(Gun Rights, Protection & Ownership) Don't be a Victim

A recent headline from USA Today said "Obama says the rights of hunters have to be respected in the gun control debate, and that he himself has done some skeet shooting. Although I agree that hunting is fun, few of us need to put food on the table to survive. But we do need our guns for protection and we have the right to "not be a Victim".

How do we measure the benefits of gun ownership? If you cleaned out my house and left me with just my turkey carving knife I certainly wouldn't sleep well. If I scaled that down to a pocket knife, because I can't carry my turkey special, would I feel safe walking downtown during the evening? No!. Would I feel safe walking out back in the woods? No! The list goes on. Am I patently insecure, I don't think so, I just realize that 99.9% of the bad people out there can out run me, out fight me, and handle a knife a whole lot better. If I could defend myself with a shouting contest then maybe I'd have a chance. Basically, without my guns, I would be fresh meat for any bad guys. You want my wallet, you got it. Want my wife, sorry dear nothing I can do. Adding to this travesty, is the fact that passing laws to eliminate the guns is the same as posting an open door policy for all crooks. Remember, they will still have their guns.

Our congress is going to be voting on our rights to bear arms. They need to hear from those of us that know how to use those guns responsibly that we and out guns are part of the solution and not the problem.

Bud
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-27-13, 05:16 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I agree with you Bud9051 I don't own any guns but if I felt the need to be able to buy one I certainly would want to be able to buy one without too many problems. I certainly would want it to be properly licensed though and wouldn't mind a background check. As I see gun ownership it is both a right and a responsibility and by having background checks on all guns being sold it doesn't stop criminals from getting guns but it at least will slow things down and discourage criminals.

The right to bear arms should always be there for all sane people without a criminal background and should never be denied to anyone who wishes to purchase a fire arm who is sane and not a criminal.
 
  #3  
Old 01-27-13, 05:40 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
I agree, although the bad guys don't follow our procedures so I doubt it would slow them down.

One of the concerns about registering everything, which starts with all purchases, is trusting our gov. Off topic a bit, but an example, is our governor here in Maine just announced he wants to use the recently approved casino revenues to balance the budget, instead of, as promised, for education. They told us the money would go for education so the voters would approve it. Now in the blink of an eye they want to absorb those funds into the state budget.

There is far too much eye blinking going on in our government for me to believe that any restrictions they impose with this push will not be just a first step towards an objective they aren't stating. They, being the few radical anti-gun people who just don't like guns. The rest are just being pulled along because their emotions are hurting. I understand emotions hurting, but how are thousands of other families going to feel when bad guys rule the nights because good people only carry pocket knives.

If you NEEDED a gun tomorrow, you would have trouble getting it and you wouldn't know how to use it. As long as you can keep it safe, now is the time to go through that process.

Bud
 
  #4  
Old 01-27-13, 07:53 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I agree the government doesn't always do things the way they should and it is an imperfect government but what thing created by us humans is perfect? Some things you can call them near perfect but never really perfect. So as I have said there needs to be a balance between good government and just plain stupidity by government. What I encourage everyone to do is to write their congressman and tell them what they think. No guarantee of course that they will listen the liberals here in Maryland certainly don't like they should but at least you can try.
 
  #5  
Old 01-28-13, 07:21 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440
Gun Ban Clarifications.

OH NO! Misconceptions abound...

Total banning is a bad idea, IMO. Deprives law abiding citizens a such a weapon. Destroys an entire segment of the industry and results in more job losses, etc. Bad Idea...:NO NO NO:

The federal government has no intentions of banning "GUNS." The federal government is proposing the banning or re-banning of "ASSAULT WEAPONS". Those weapons are in the classifications of the AK and AR platforms. The feds have no intentions of banning hand guns, long guns nor shotguns! Period. Read the proposed law and avoid hear say. Much of which is pure BS.

What the feds should have done IMO is simple. Stay out of it directly. Instead, change the federal classification of ASSAULT type weapons into level two classification or a slightly less restrictive requirement sub category of level two. The law already exists. The requirements to obtain a weapon in this category makes it more difficult to obtain the weapon in this classification category. The buyer would then also be required to pay a much higher registration fee.

Next, require states obtain and maintain a database of all sales in that category of ASSAULT WEAPONS past, present and all future sales. Tack the ownership of such assault weapons to the drivers license and vehicle registration records. About as secure as one can get. Since a drivers license data base is already established and ones license is not scanned for ID info except by law enforcement personal.

A private person can have the assault style weapon but would have to meet stricter requirements and pay more. No ban is ever going to keep such weapons out of the hands of the wrong persons. No safety and or security ID device on a gun of any type nor gun safe will either. Nor will any mental health checks.

Want the facts? Read the proposed law.
Want to make your voice heard? Sound off here:

The White House

Contact the White House | The White House

 
  #6  
Old 01-28-13, 01:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
What you say Sharp Advice is exactly along my way of thinking. Only thing though I would include a mental health background check too that could only be done by law enforcement. The way I would word the laws is that all mental health professionals would be required to report to law enforcement any person who could be deemed to be dangerous. The report would be electronic and the person going for therapy would never know that a report was made. A person would have the right to see why they were denied a gun and then they could be examined and if found mentally competent then allowed to buy a gun. No rights would ever be violated.
 
  #7  
Old 01-28-13, 03:05 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
hc !!!! "No rights would ever be violated. "
You want "all mental health professionals would be required to report to law enforcement any person who could be deemed to be dangerous." & "The report would be electronic and the person going for therapy would never know that a report was made." No, no, no, no!

Sharp, I read the presidents proposal and if his timing wasn't tied to a tragedy, and his focus of "if we could save just one life it would all be worth it nonsense" wasn't just a sympathy play I might give it more attention. The problem isn't the stick. It is the people who use the stick to hurt others. Take away their stick and they will just find another way, perhaps even worse.

The deception in their proposals is obvious when they use of the term "assault weapons". Because it sounds dangerous they want to scare people into approving their restrictions. Waiting for a tragedies to occur and parading heart broken people in front of a camera and using scare tactics to pass legislation doesn't make for good laws. The measures that are needed today are the same as the ones needed before these tragedies occurred, and come from careful planning, proper analysis, and a foundation of support from all sides that the steps to be taken will produce the desired results. Their current proposal is going to fail to produce those desired results and will simply be followed by more banning and more controls resulting in more failure. Yes, current laws need to be better defined, but more laws are not the answer to the problems we face.

"55 saves lives" If he really wants to save just one life, how about a few thousand of those who die on our highways.

Bud
 
  #8  
Old 01-28-13, 03:09 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Hedge - How do you do "a mental health" background check? You can check to see if a guy has ever been committed but how about the guy being "treated" for schizophrenia or any one of a number of mental illnesses? How do you get around privacy issues. What if the whack job is a minor like Kleboldt?

Do you think there should be a national database of people with mental problems so that they can be prevented from buying a gun?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to point out that this whole mess is way more complicated than the politicians and the media would have you believe.
 
  #9  
Old 01-28-13, 03:19 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Sharp Advice, My problem with your argument is that I subscribe to the foot in the door theory that makes a lot of gun owners nervous.

The ban debate IS NOT ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS! Constitutional issues aside, it's about a precedent. It makes the next step a little easier.

If the concern was truely about saving lives we would be discussing a handgun ban. According to a study done by FactCheck.org a rifle meeting the criteria of "assault" weapon was used in less than 2% of the gun murders in the US.

I agree with Hedge that mental illness has to be part of the debate but so should race. Unfortunately, that's not PC so it gets zero coverage.
 
  #10  
Old 01-28-13, 03:26 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I can see it now....I own an "assault" rifle. I don't, and hardly anyone does. They own ominous "looking" weapons that have been classified as "assault". I would not enter into an assault with a semi automatic weapon...sorry...won't happen in real life, either. Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, so there's your law.

This "assault" rifle I dubiously own is data base connected to my driver's license. I happen to be a redneck from Georgia. I am traveling to NYC. I get pulled over for excessive speed. They run my license. What do you think will happen, next? "Outta the car hillbilly, while we search your vehicle.....hands on the hood and don't move". Illegal search and seizure?? Not with my gun being on the data base. That is about as absurd an idea I have heard of. Registration of legal guns is not going to thwart one single crime. It just ain't gonna happen.
 
  #11  
Old 01-28-13, 04:06 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
As to the mental illness part of the debate it may not be widely known but in many states now if someone has committed a crime and they have seen a Psychiatrist or any other mental health professional that mental health professional can be compelled to show their records.

As to being pulled over in another state by the police as long as a gun has not been used in the commission of a crime no one should have to worry about their gun being in their car. That would be the point of a national data base that would record already registered guns of any type.
 
  #12  
Old 01-28-13, 04:20 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
The reality is that America does not, that's DOES NOT, want more gun control. All they want is for the tragedies to slow down. Our current administration, not excusing the past, doesn't have an answer, so they whip up the emotions and push through some gun laws so they can LOOK like they are doing something. It is our administration and the anti-gun crowd that are trying to sell gun control in the midst of strong emotions as the solution. Should we really trust a salesperson with an axe to grind?

America will be headed down a slippery slope in the wrong direction. Since there is little difference between my hunting rifles and what they are calling an assault rifle, why wouldn't I be concerned. Once they get these laws into effect they will go back to waiting for the next tragedy to demand more and more. Instead of preventing the tragedies they are using them for their agenda. How long has Pelosi had her proposal ready and waiting?

Bud

And hc, try driving through NY or Mass with a legal gun. If they see it you are in big trouble.
 
  #13  
Old 01-28-13, 06:45 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
With the registration data based to your driver's license, they have the knowledge you possibly have a gun. Even if you don't, they will be more likely to pull your car apart to confirm you don't have it with you, just to satisfy their laws. Placing such a "scarlet letter" on innocent law abiding gun owners is for lack of a better word (and mom told me never to use it) stupid.
 
  #14  
Old 01-28-13, 07:14 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Bud9051 point taken about the gun in your car it is true that some police officers take things too far I know that for a fact as I have seen it on the news. I saw that during a riot after a football game at the University Of Maryland the cops took it too far and finally those police officers paid for it as their police powers were stripped and they were prosecuted for excessive force. If a gun is put in a safe location in a trunk while traveling then that gun is not a threat to a police officer. If the police officer takes it as a threat and does something wrong then he should be prosecuted.

The reality of the situation about guns is that all new guns sold at gun shops are already registered by each state. Having a federal register would have that gun automatically registered in all states. Also whether we like it or not the federal government is already involved with the ATF as they do investigate some gun crimes in some states if they are called for assistance or in the case of bombings. As you also know they are also involved with the sale of alcohol and alcohol as you know can't be sold interstate unless it is through a licensed dealer. People don't worry too much about that though as you can buy alcohol of some sort or other on about any street corner.

One thing I also support is gun ownership being controlled by age as just like alcohol is controlled by age so should gun ownership. Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with a father teaching his son how to hunt or even shoot but I really believe that the actual ownership should be held back until the child is at least 18. At the same time too if a child shoots a burglar to defend his family those parents shouldn't be prosecuted as that child should be taught about the proper use of a fire arm in my opinion. Please read too if you haven't already my comments I made in my own post about a man in D.C. properly defending a child against a deadly pit bull attack. That man may be prosecuted which in my opinion would be a real crime.
 
  #15  
Old 01-29-13, 06:06 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
Although I would say the gun registry (killed off within the last year) here was a bit of a waste, most of the requirements imposed on us here in Canada have done fairly well to reduce the number of folks purchasing guns that shouldn't have them.
Not saying ours is a perfect system, but it may be worth looking at the good and bad of what we've done, and improve it.

I should note, we don't own guns here for protection.
 
  #16  
Old 01-31-13, 07:04 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440
All the federal government wants to due is ban assault weapons. I still think it's a bad idea and will solve nor resolve anything. It's a feel good ploy and a politicians way of saying see, I'm doing something for those I represent. But they wish they didn't have to regardless of political party. It simply adds more work to their list of need to get done items and takes away free time to raise future reelection campaign money, make deals with lobbyists and play golf.... Good Grief!!!

Why or what has the state of Mass done within their own state???? States need to do more if more is needed. IMO it's a states issue not a federal issue. In this fashion, we can hold city, county and state elected leaders (politicians) accountable. Protest at the ballot box and complain locally. Not federally.

The state registration records all already exist. You might be surprised at what they already know about you and what you have......When a crime is committed, law enforcement simply locations where the gun was sold, by whom and to whom. Be surprised what ballistics reveals too!

Gun shops are required to keep records of all gun sales. Law enforcement obtains those records. The means of tacking such sales of only assault weapons to the DMV registrations and drivers licensing simply makes it easier to locate.

Make no mistake. All the info already exists. If such was on the drivers license and DMV records and one was stopped for a driving violation, without probable cause for a search of the vehicle it does not happen. Nothing to hide nothing to fear, IMO. If a police office violates the rule and does a search without probable cause, then you have a case for dispute. IMO a rare occasion.

Take the emotions out of the discussions and what's left? Not much. Back to somewhat the same assault weapons ban we had a few years ago. Less the mental health issue. Which in my opinion is BS. And the more scary aspect. Allowing some head shrink to determine someones mental state in order to buy a gun??? That's the slope to be concerned about.

Why not ban the emotionally unstable from driving? Drinking? Where would that end up is more scary......then a stricter background check, higher registration fee and tacking such info onto a drivers license and DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) auto registrations, IMO.
 
  #17  
Old 01-31-13, 08:32 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,018
I really believe that the actual ownership should be held back until the child is at least 18
It already is. Handguns are 21, rifles and shotguns are 18. That's for purchase from a licensed dealer. If someone else buys and gives it to someone not able to purchase, they are a straw purchaser and have committed a federal crime.

Now...private sales are another matter. No handgun sales below 18 (with a few exceptions) but no restriction on long guns.


Can a 14 y/o have his own gun? Sure, when it is used with adult supervision. I had a .22 at that age, as well as using my fathers shotgun to hunt. When not in use it was secured...not real well, but it was. I could get to it without much effort, but then, my parents knew I wasn't a psychopath nor were any of my friends.
 

Last edited by Gunguy45; 01-31-13 at 12:23 PM.
  #18  
Old 01-31-13, 12:14 PM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440
Don't become a victim of gun theft!!!
Safe method for gun transportation:
Notice the cables and locks?
Gun carry cases also locked...
Intent satisfies all law enforcement officers nation wide.

Never crossed a state line where gun security was in doubt nor questioned.
One suggestion was made. Key locks should be replaced with combo locks.
What officer did not know at that time was keys are NOT carried on key chain nor in truck at any time. Keys locked in home gun safe....

Cables allow cases to be slide forward, further into truck bed ahead of the tail gate extender. Allowing room for other items to be carried where cases presently are. No need to climb into truck to get cases. Simply pull them back via the cables....

BTW: Combo numbers unknown to anyone but myself. Not even my sons nor any other family members. After I assume room temp, sons will inherit them but will have to work some to remove....LOL! Cases also great place to carry any other valuables like cameras, etc.

Also helps to ensure guns remain secured in the event of a vehicle accident and I was not able to drive truck or taken away in ambulance, etc. Truck would windup being towed to impound yard... During such time unsecured cases and or guns not in locked cases which are not secured to truck may be subjected to easy/quick theft!!!...


Name:  PHTO0024.jpg
Views: 222
Size:  18.6 KB


Name:  PHTO0025.jpg
Views: 196
Size:  23.1 KB


Name:  PHTO0026.jpg
Views: 237
Size:  23.5 KB


Name:  PHTO0027.jpg
Views: 229
Size:  21.8 KB


Name:  PHTO0028.jpg
Views: 219
Size:  20.9 KB
 
Attached Images  

Last edited by Sharp Advice; 02-01-13 at 07:27 AM.
  #19  
Old 01-31-13, 12:56 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Like the cases for personal travel, but the TSA will require they move through their system unlocked, even if weapons are declared in them. A little scary IMO.
 
  #20  
Old 01-31-13, 02:20 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
From everything I have heard gun laws are not uniform in other words in one state a person may be prohibited from buying a gun at the age of 18 and in another state it is 21. Now I personally believe an 18 year old is responsible enough to buy a gun and own said gun but if he goes into another state that is another matter.

What I would like to see is some legislation that would make the gun ownership laws more uniform. Also if not a database of all registered guns through the federal registry then why not make it hard for a gun dealer that did wrong in one state to be able to open shop in another state? In other words let's say you have a fictional gun shop called Harry's gun shop. The owner of Harry's decides to sell guns under the table to criminals in California and he is arrested. Later on though he decides to set up shop in Virginia and lies about ever being convicted of a felony. If a database isn't set up for that then the state of Virginia will never know anything about his crime in California as the data would not be shared.

As to the mental health thing a Department of Motor Vehicles has to be informed about someone who has epilepsy as that person should either never drive or be closely watched. So some private information unfortunately is already being shared with states. Of course some of that is voluntarily shared but states have ways of finding out if you are lying. Most general practitioners know about the mental state of their patients and a person could be required to divulge who their GP was or not be able to buy a gun. Most things now too are on computers in doctors offices so it would be easy for someone to say yes it is o.k. or no don't sell the gun. As to privacy make sure that it is spelled out on the license registration that it is a felony to divulge the name of any persons doctor who wants to buy a gun with a mandatory sentence of not less than 30 years in prison. It would also be a felony to say anything about that persons mental state unless a court order was given to the gun dealer. I think that would keep crazy people from buying a gun while still keeping their records confidential. Afterwards if they are cleared then they should be able to buy any gun they want. It wouldn't be a perfect solution but it would be a start in the right direction.
 
  #21  
Old 01-31-13, 02:57 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,018
You have quite a few things wrong. Federal law trumps State when it comes to firearms purchases. What I stated is Federal law when it comes to licensed dealers. It is also Federal law about the private sales. State law MAY be more restrictive in some places, but not weaker. Maybe I wasn't clear that the conditions I described are already Federal law and have been for quite some time.

As to Harry....if he is convicted in CA of a firearms violation as you describe, he would never be able to get another license. Do you not get that firearms dealers are Federally licensed? They have to go through extensive background checks and regular inspections.

They already have a database of criminal violations...it's called the NCIC administered by the FBI and is available to every LE agency as well as some other agencies who conduct background checks.
 
  #22  
Old 04-29-13, 07:21 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440


but the TSA will require they move through their system unlocked, even if weapons are declared in them.
Who said anything about the TSA? Not me. ...:NO NO NO:...

Carry method never intended to meet TSA requirements! Only land vehicle transportation.

Carry method once again approved during last travel trip. Gun shows recently visited in both Arizona and New Mexico...and did some shooting on the Ben Avery gun range in Arizona. Nice place to shoot. Except it's on federal land and the restrictions abound....
 
  #23  
Old 04-29-13, 07:40 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440


Trivia Gun Regulation Question.

Got your thinking caps on? Hope so.

Question?

Who was the first president to petition congress for gun regulations?????

.........

You know?

A once Democrat whom turned Republican.

If you where of voting age, politically aware and remember back then, It was president Ronald Reagan. He petitioned congress to regulate guns soon after an assassination attempt was made upon his life by Hinkley, who was armed with a 22 caliber hand gun.....

Results of that request? ZERO. Nothing resulted nor happened.

Congress turned a deaf ear to the issue.

I.E. "Read My Lips"

Dead issue.

D.O.A.!...

 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes