Ya’ know, I would have thought it was extreme, except that Todderbob wouldn’t even go so far as to acknowledge that any age restriction was justifiable. When I specifically asked of a five year old should be able to own a gun, Todderbob rattled on about how (s)he was shooting responsibly at that age, which suggests that it’s ok to have a gun at that age. Ok, it wasn’t explicitly said, but what WAS said is that there are absolutely no acceptable restrictions.
The reason I asked about a hospital is I work at one. We have our own security, and any armed person would be considered a security risk. Even our security don’t carry guns, because there are all kinds of flammable and otherwise dangerous gasses and materials all over the place. I can think of lots of other workplaces where shooting is dangerous even when you’re a good guy shooting at a bad guy. A checmical plant for example.
There is a background check, but as far as I can tell the NH police only deny permits to people who have committed relatively serious crimes. The permits are inexpensive and are issued promptly without any other requirements than passing the background check. So I’m ok with them in general, although I might not be if someone was denied for a minor victimless crime.
But that’s in New Hampshire, which is one of the most pro-gun states. Most of the police here are openly pro-gun.
In other states, such as Massachusetts, things are different. There it’s all up to the subjective decision of the individual police. It’s much harder to get a permit in some towns than others, and there is a clear, if not quite provable in court, tendency to discriminate against minorities. This was one of the big issues for the Boston Pink Pistols when I used to shoot and go to political events with them.
And while we’re on the subject of carry permits, I believe that if you are allowed to carry concealed, you should be allowed to carry openly. It’s ridiculous for a person to go to jail because their shirt was a little too tight or it rode up a bit.
Being admittedly too lazy to cite, United States vs. Miller (1939) is the last major case that really defined the 2nd amendment. Among other things, IIRC, the decision basically reiterated that “the militia” as used in the context of the amendment was at the time “all male citizens”, and as part of that same must be permitted access to “arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Given that the standard military battle rifle is still either semi-automatic or burst/automatic select-fire (trivia–we haven’t had a fully automatic battle rifle since Vietnam, because full-auto fire sucks for the most part), there would likely be issue using the same precedents with an attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles in militarily useful calibers. (which, not incidentally, is a category with near-complete overlap with “good rifles for hunting legal big game in the US”)
I’m not sure how you’re defining “battle rifle” but the M-249 has been reasonably popular since 1984 (though there are some plans to start phasing it out in favour a newer weapon with similar capabilities) and it fires the same round as the M-16.
As to where someone may carry, I understand it being prohibited in courthouses and perhaps a few other places. But it should be allowed in ordinary government office buildings, and especially in post offices. Many people routinely go to the post office every day, it’s not some kind of special place. They shouldn’t be required to remove their gun and leave it in their car. This is especially true since some post offices are laid out such that it would be very easy for someone to get mugged while getting their mail from their PO box.
I tend to define “battle rifle” as what the standard 11B or 11M carries, that is, the M16A2, M16A4, and M4 Carbine. That is, the basic weapon of the basic infantryman in the active-duty military.
The M249 is a squad light machine gun, not a rifle. (despite being chambered for the same cartridge, as are many of the squad sniper rifles.)
You may also see people use the term to refer specifically to larger-caliber select-fire weapons, and prefer the term “assault rifle” for the M-16 variants.
Well, heck, obviously Canada has a much stronger gun culture, because our C7s (our variant on the M16) still has full auto. None of of this pussy “burst” crap. That’s for fags and liberals.
I’m for gun restrictions. Just not any more than we have now, in fact, less.
I think we should have NCIS background checks, and the system should be open to the public.
Excuse me? Where did I say 5 year old should be able to shoot guns?
You implied it would be a good idea to force parents out of being allowed to shoot weapons with their children, I simply stated that is a bad idea. I think children should no more be allowed to carry firearms (in public) than they should drive vehicles (in public). To extend a metaphor, you should be allowed to drive a vehicle of any nature of private property, and shoot a firearm of any nature on private property. So long as you’re not endangering others in the process.
In other words, it’s the parents choice as to whether or not they want to allow their child to shoot a gun, not the governments. That said, the government shouldn’t allow children to purchase guns. How did you misinterpret my statements as saying I thought 5 year olds should be able to purchase firearms? Intentionally, no doubt.
Since when did “Come with” mean “Purchase separately” and “requirement” mean “no law mandating”?
In fact, both of those things mean just the opposite of what you said they mean.
Also, you can’t build these types of locks into firearms, reliably. Nor should they need to be. Kickstart ATV’s and dirtbikes, for instance, don’t need any form of external safety - it’s up to the owner to ensure they’re stored safely.
Firearms, likewise, the same way. However, because it’s such an easy thing (2-5$) for them to come with locks, I think they should.
Of course it’s not a compromise, it’s a reality.
I’m not satisfied with any death rate. But that doesn’t mean I want to ban the object that’s used in the process.
I want to address the actual causes. For instance, I want to address poverty, lack of social mobility, etc.
These things will lower crime/death rates. Banning firearms will simply force law abiding citizens to give up firearms, and at best will simply decrease the number of firearm related deaths, while increasing the number of other types of deaths.
The last gun ban, the Clinton “Assault Weapon” Ban, had no effect, in over 10 years.
I am okay with, and fully support, Shall Issue licensing.
You can only be denied licensing for violent/criminal behavior, or as determined by a judge.
I think that Conceal Carry Permits should be all encompassing (except places with specific types of signs posted at all Entrances).
These permits would allow you to, permanently, skip any waiting periods or Background Checks for purchasing firearms. They would require annual/bi-annual/?? renewal, like drivers licenses.
They would only apply to public areas, and not private property (as in, without one, you could conceal carry on private property where you had permission from the owner), and private property owners would be allowed to bar you the right to carry in their establishment.
Any misuse of a firearm would immediately have your license permanently revoked, with certain types barring you the ownership of firearms, period.
Other than that, to purchase and use a firearm on private property (and to transport, unloaded) or where you have permission should require no licensing at all.
I compare a firearm to a vehicle – to use one on private property, no licensing is required. To use one on public roads, it has to pass safety tests, you must be licensed, etc.
The ideas you stated (banning all semiautomatic firearms) is unreasonable and, frankly, idiotic.
That wasn’t what was said, at all.
You said;
Which I interpreted to mean the government should/should not be allowed to restrict what a parent does with his or her child.
I responded the way I thought it was intended.
Then you should be allowed to post, at the entrances, a notice that says “NO FIREARMS ON PREMISES.” in contrasting colors, of a certain size, and it should be the rule of law.
It’s an Opt-Out System, read here. Basically your sign has to be within certain restrictions, and it would be as if the President/Mayor/Governor himself posted it.
Definitely. I made the mistake of putting a Select Fire weapon on Full Auto (a friend of mine let me shoot his)…
… short story a bit longer, I didn’t hit shit! And I’m a good shot. And, frankly, it was no fun. Burst fire (different weapon) was plenty of fun though.
Because if you want the law to distinguish between two different weapons, restricting or banning weapon A but not weapon B, in order to make people safer, you must understand whether or not being forced to “downgrade” to weapon B actually makes anyone safer.
For instance, a law that restricts guns with bayonet mounts but not guns without bayonet mounts (like the Assault Weapons Ban) is a bad law, because the bayonet is rarely - if ever - used by criminals, it doesn’t make the weapon significantly more dangerous, and it is easy to circumvent such a law anyway. On the other hand, distinguishing between bolt-action rifles and semi-automatic rifles, or knives and guns, can be defended, as one is an significant advantage over the other.
Yes, they do. Seriously, they do. There are lots of things you can’t legally do in the bedroom.
You can claim your “freedom” as much as you want, but your life is actually highly regulated, just like most people on the planet. You are not that much freer than anyone else in the world, and in some cases even more restricted.
Please stop appealing to “freedom” and claiming threats against your liberty. You have some good points, but this is just not one of them and makes you come across as some kind of extreme survivalist or something.
No, that part makes him look uninformed or blind to reality.
But tying gun control laws in with some scheme to deny him his constitutionally-granted Freedom!, kinda does. Why not keep it on topic - gun control laws, or lack thereof.
(I know I’ll get bashed for this, because “I don’t understand how the concept of Freedom! is inextricably tied to gun ownership”, but it’s just my opinion.)
The government should have zero, absolutely zero say in what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Arguing that the government should have the right to dictate the sexual behavior of consenting adults makes you look neither informed or clearly viewing reality.
The Bill of Rights does indeed enumerate our rights. The title is a good clue. Being able to exercise one’s rights is part of having freedom. Supporting the US Constitution does not make one look like a wacky survivalist. At all.
And I’d wonder whether or not you’d say that about someone who felt that infringing on the 1st was a violation of fundamental freedoms. Or is it only the 2nd?
If that dog is an adult human being who has offered informed consent and he/se enjoys S&M, then sure.
Of course, then that wouldn’t be a dog and your gotcha hypothetical would be rather pointless.
But you already knew that.
Come on.
When someone says that the government has no business in people’s bedrooms they’re not talking about animal cruelty. Or child abuse. Or white slavery. Or murder. Or what-the-fuck-ever. When people talk about what they do in the bedroom, it’s a euphemism for whatever acts of freakery consenting adults engage in, not criminal violations of non-consenting individuals or non-humans.
Are you really confused on that, or just trying to score rhetorical points?
I also notice you’ve dropped the argument that the Bill of Rights does not discuss our rights and that our freedoms are the freedoms not to have our rights infringed upon. Do you then concede the point or did you simply shelve it for a while to talk about dog fucking?