I just want to ask Enderw24 what exactly he meant by this: “I started it to find out why proponents of the 2nd amendment think the way they do and I’m developing a much clearer picture now.”
I am curious to find out what picture is developing inside your mind about 2nd advocates.
I have some other comments for this thread but will have to wait until I have enough time to commit to a proper response.
I take this to mean that you would not object to a person who is carrying a concealed handgun legally in a holster on their hip driving their car with that same handgun in that same holster on their hip?
Just asking for clarification, because it seems you’re saying that if concealed carry is illegal, then it is reasonable that a loaded gun being in the car is also illegal.
Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn’t. It’s entirely probable that, had firearms never been invented, some other means of causing death far more easy to use en masse would have.
The fact of the matter is, firearms were invented. Even if every firearm currently on the planet were destroyed right now, the knowledge of how to make them would not be erased. This bell cannot be un-rung.
And as far as causing a lot of death quickly, firearms are not nearly as efficient as things like diesel fuel and fertilizer, dynamite, biological agents, or commercial airliners loaded with jet fuel.
The world is not a safe place, it never was, and it never will be. Some people’s lives have been adversely affected by people with guns, and some people’s lives have been saved because of someone with a gun. Realistically, human beings have always been creative in developing ways to kill other human beings. If not firearms, it would be something else.
Me, too. Good question, nswgru1.
Right. If I can legally carry a concealed (and loaded) weapon on my hip in public, I see little point in having to unload it, or lock it away, simply because I’m in my car. Carry it on your hip, on the passenger seat, in the glove box, under the seat, whatever ya want. If you choose to leave it in the car when you exit, however, you should certainly be locking in the trunk, though, for the simple sake of safety. In addition, if you have a loaded weapon in the car, and are pulled over by a law enforcement official, you should be required to inform him immediately that you have such.
And I really have no idea if any of this is actually required, or permitted, in any of the states which currently allow concealed carry. These just seem like pratical ideas to me.
Whoops. Missed this:
Yes, that is also correct.
I started to respond to your latest ad hominem spewings, Riboflavin. Then I thought better of it. If you wish to discuss the matter further, start a Pit thread. Barring that, you and I are done.
Yes, seems reasonable and practical to me too.
I can’t tell you how it works in other states, but I was told when I got my Pennsylvania Concealed Carry License that, should I be pulled over by a police officer while carrying concealed, I was to hand the officer both my driver’s license and my concealed carry license to indicate that I was in the possession of a legally concealed handgun.
It seems reasonable to me that the officer know this, for the safety of both of us, and handing the license to the officer is definitely going to go over better than saying ‘I have a gun.’
Just a personal observation that struck me right here, and I’m kind of curious as to whether other people who frequent firing ranges have noticed the same thing, but there always seems to be a lot of courtesy exchanged at the range, perhaps as an extension of bein careful for safety’s sake.
That makes excellent sense. Especially in the event of an accident. The other driver’s don’t necesarily need to know that you have possession of a loaded firearm. Giving the officer your card is more discreet.
Yeah, that’s my observation, too. In most cases. I used to be a range safety officer and there is, of course, the odd asshole on the line from time to time. Courtesy is the norm. Perhaps because saftey dictates that you have to speak to the other folks from time to time. It becomes an ice breaker. And obviously every there shares a common interest, too.
Yeah I know what you mean. I’ve found that the range masters are pretty good at getting rid of the odd assholes and making things safe for the other people who are there, and that the rest of us generally have a good time.
I’ve met some very wonderful and interesting people through firearms. At the range, at expos, etc.
</tangent>
John Harrison, responding to your comment at the top of this page. If you find flaws in my initial premise, feel free to point them out. That’s exactly why I never claimed to be an expert in the workings of the 2nd amendment. If I came in here saying “the 2nd amendment sucks and all those who disagree suck too” it would probably be correct to call me on my complete lack of knowledge. As it stands, I’m making an initial premise and inviting dissenting viewpoints and for that I don’t believe I need to be a well read in the matter at hand.
Riboflavin, yes, I have a huge problem with all those things you listed, which is why I created my list as a counter example.
Let’s start with 1. I said “brandish” not “carry.” Every time a public official wanted to take the gun out he or she would need to advertise it so the public could be there if it wished. That would make it quite a burden to take the gun out, wouldn’t it? Well, that’s just what the OMA does. Many states require the public to be notified whenever a “majority of a quorum” meets to discuss ANY business dealing with their committee. If it’s a 5 person committee that means it takes two people. Two. If you’re on a committee you can’t talk to anyone else about anything tangnitally related without violating the OMA. The OMA can be a huge burden in accomplishing anything and, likewise, so would my rule on brandishment.
No warrant is needed here. There are worms that go through your computer, that could be going through it right this very second, that search out copyrighted materials companies wish to look for. If they find them illegally on your computer, they can and do send warnings to your internet service provider to have you pay up or get kicked off. Imagine if they started going after recreational gun makers too…
Without reporter shield laws the reporters can’t promise confidentiality either. Doing so means they’re also lying. Reporters carry notes too and, yes, the government needs a subpeona to get them. It does get them though. It gets them despite any claim to confidentiality or to freedom of the press. But what if the source only came forward because the reporter promised anonimity? What if a gun buyer did they same because of a promise the gun dealer made?
Can you think of any legal use for a firearm that you would not want others doing? Anything that you feel is an inappropriate use for a firearm? Sleeping with a gun under your pillow? Having a loaded gun sitting out in your house or having bullets that were easily accessible? Probably not something you would do, right? But do you support another person’s right to do such a thing?
nswgru1, sorry, I’ll clarify. I’m willing to concede that a fundemental different between the the 1st and 2nd amendments is that most people do not want to eliminate ALL free speech…merely the parts they disagree with. OTOH, there are groups out there who wish to eliminate all guns. In this sense, I can understand the need to fight every battle lest the other side use the minor victories to further their goal of total elimination of guns. I also understand a gun proponent who feels this way. I understand it, I just don’t agree with it.
I don’t agree with it because the people fighting the fight don’t agree with it. The NRA is doing one of two things: fighting fights they believe in or fighting fights they don’t believe in. If they’re doing the former, the question needs to be raised of whether this particular fight is necessary or if they’ve lost perspective of the big picture. If it’s the latter, then they’re hypocrites. I don’t believe the “slippery slope” argument is a good enough justification for any fights taken on for the sake of fighting.
But I have at least learned through this not to paint the NRA and its supporters with such a large brush.
Varies. In general, there tends to be a lot of courtesy, but the ‘old deer hunter’ crowd can become pretty viscious towards military rifle enthusiasts like myself. It’s some sort of elitism, or something.
But I go to big annual shoots for nothing but military rifle enthusiasts, and the comradery and courtesy there is absolutely amazing. It’s like we’ve always known each other, like we’re brothers and sisters. Of course, we’re outcasted by society in general, and by most gun owners, so I suppose that instills a sense of some sort of bond.
Yes, it’s the former and yes it’s necessary. Does this help?
I’m having trouble understanding what it is you’re asking. Are you questioning why the NRA and other groups fight to keep rights involving the 2nd Amendment? Or how many restrictions are reasonable?
I suppose some of them are, but not all ‘old deer hunter’ types are like that.
In fact, most of the ‘old deer hunter’ types I know are also interested in military type rifles.
Guess it all varies depending on where you are and who else is there.
[Note that I’ve shifted the order of quotes a little bit, putting the main stuff at the top.]
The NRA is fighting fights they believe in. While not explicit, you’re still making the implicit assertion that the NRA fights to block every piece of gun legislation proposed which is simply not true; the NRA has a long history of supporting what the NRA considers sensible gun control (and the NRA is most definately not the ‘gun control is hitting what you aim at’ organization).
The NRA actively supported the ‘cop killer’ bill once it was modified to ban armor piercing ammo instead of virtually all rifle ammo, the NRA actively supported the Brady Bill once it was changed from ‘waiting periods on all hangun purchases’ to ‘waiting periods on handgun purchases for five years, then a criminal background check for all firearm purchases after that’ (which, BTW, a lot of PG types REALLY didn’t like the NRA doing), they’ve championed project exile (creation of federal prosecutors who’s whole job is to prosecute people for violations of federal gun laws), and overall they’ve supported legislation that they think will actually do good and opposed legislation that they believe to be either harmful or a waste of time. Back in the 60s, they supported the first ‘Saturday Night Special’ law, believing it would take unsafe guns off of the market, until it turned out that the legislation would have banned any gun costing less than $10,000. Way back in 1934 they supported the National Firearms Act, though they weren’t really the same organization then (they were more of a ‘shooting sports’ org than ‘the main pro-gun organization’). Certainly, they don’t support most of the laws that come from the Brady Bunch, but that’s for the not-so-suprising reason that they do actually disagree with those proposed laws.
What, exactly, do you mean by this statement? By saying ‘the question needs to be raised’, you seem to be implying that PG people or NRA members aren’t raising the question when they should be. If that’s what you mean, give us some examples of legislation that the NRA fought against that you think ‘the needs to be raised’ about. If it’s not, then clarify what you’re talking about, because I really don’t see any other way to read that statement.
Your list doesn’t work as a counter example (I detailed it below) because for all of the things you listed I pretty much hold the same position for both 1st and 2nd amendment issues. I’m putting in a brief response to what you posted for completeness, but I don’t think there’s any point in continuing that thread of discussion until you clarify the stuff above, because I’m not really clear on what you’re arguing about anymore.
The first analogy is simply too strained for me. The second one is a free speech limitation that I don’t agree with, and wouldn’t agree with the comprable limit on guns. The third one is more complicated, but I don’t think that extending privilege to reporters or merchants is something that should be done (IOW, my position on both is pretty much the same again). And on the 4th, I don’t want people using freedom of speech to insult each other, but I don’t want nanny-state laws requiring that people only say nice things either. Your point 4 is a rather strongly held position of mine for both the 2nd and 1st amendments. BTW, I see you haven’t followed too many GD threads on this topic if you think keeping a loaded shotgun in the closet is something I wouldn’t do.
Well, it seems no one has pointed out the other error in the OP. That is to say that there are no “pro free speech groups” defending even “reasonable” restrictions of the 1st based upon the old “slipper slope” argument. But there are- there are such groups that defend even child pornographers- based upon the fact that ALL speech should be protected. Both Admendments have their zealots who fight tooth & nail every restriction upon their pet. And- this is a GOOD thing. For although I don’t want to buy any child porn, I can understand that the law which restricted even “made up” child porn (that is porn with adults made to look like kids) could have a chilling effect upon freedom of speech (like “Lolita”- film & book- could become “child porn”). And although I also have no need for an 'assault weapon" (that is to say a gun that LOOKS extra dangerous), I can also see where their interpretation of that could be extended (and has been) to normal hunting weapons.
So, yes indeedy- that slope IS slippery, and dudes like the NRA & the ACLU are defending OUR rights.