I Like Posting This!

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by lawyerinjeans

Carpenter I appreciate the moderate tone of your response. Given the language of the 2nd amendment, the question that continues to be presented to us as a society is not whether "the people" have a right to possess arms, but what is the right of the state to limit the right to "keep and bear arms"? It is my belief, which is a valid as those holding opposing opinions, that a state can limit this right without infringing on the fundemental right. All rights have some limitations (Can't yell fire in a theater; Can't own a bazooka, or automatic firing weapon) so the question is to what degree can the state who is charged with protecting ALL the citizens, limit the right of those who carry a weapon only for their own defense? I would certainly prefer not to see open carry. If I am in a room of 100 people, and 40 are carrying side arms, I do not feel safer than if no one had a gun. Again, this is just my own feelings based on my personal experiences. With full appreciation of your position, I think that you would have to admit that the NRA with huge monetary contributions from weapons manufactures, stir the pot on this issue. Every election cycle, there is a great dust up about the democrats wanting to take your weapons. That generates huge increasse in guns sales and donations to (mostly) Republican pols that use the issue for fundrasing. With the long period of time that the Dems controlled the house and senate, and occassionally the WH., if the dems wanted your guns that would have had them already. All the 2nd amendment brew ha is usually associated with marketing from gun manufactures.
One last point, does the SPECIFIC language of the 2nd amendment extend to ammunition? Does the state have a right to retrict the access to ammo?

2nd Amend & Ammo? Well let’s look at what the ATF does nowadays. Why there's already all sorts of restricted items. Can you find belts of 50s (that would feed a mini gun) at Kmart? Seriously, I hope I’ve made my point which is that stuff is already restricted.
But I do realize that you talking about basic off the self 45, 38, 9mm whatever. These rounds are basic to basic firearms, so a cold day in hell before those would be restricted. But honestly the good stuff such as a FMJ or Hollow Point round is rather expensive. And that itself is a serious limitation.
But directly to your question, a couple months ago the US Supreme Court allowed the City of San Francisco to exclude Hollow Point bullets. I note that those are considered specialty bullets though, and other than shops not being able to sell inside city limits, entirely unenforceable, unless folks are caught with them.

You comment on open carry. I smiled. You're an atty. I know you see folks open carry, so what's the issue? Granted I'm teasing you about court bailiffs, but what’s the difference if someone is adequately trained? But open carry has been around since before the constitution. So that’s that. Live with it.
You bring up the issue of someone might yell fire in a theater. So should we close all the theatres? That’s another blanket approach.
The NRA; well, if gun control folks wouldn’t stir it up, would the NRA have a reason to even exist?
Ok now I’m done poking fun at you. Note that I tease attys mercilessly regardless of venue.

The right of the state to limit:
Now you're on the right track. Ignoring the recent San Francisco case (which was a specifically targeted thing of mil spec bullets), why is whatever comes up blanket limitations? That's the problem. The 2nd amendment simply prevents blanket restrictions. So let’s get to the real issue: The problem is either criminals (or folks that haven't learned to operate a tool). Honestly, the only issue is keeping criminals from guns. So how do you do that without infringing the rights of Joe or Josephine Citizen?

So look at other ways. I note that felons can't carry (at least they're not supposed to). So how can you prevent other folks? You have to take away that civil right on a case by case basis. For felons, a judge has signed off. Declaring someone insane? Has to have a judge sign off. The only way to take away someone's civil rights in the US is to have a judge sign off. There’s simply no way to cheap out and make blanket declarations.

However, let’s look at the old Brady bill. Certain types of firearms were declared mil spec. That was a nicely directly targeted item. Not a 2nd amend problem. So manufacturers modified designs to fall just below those new rules. Gotta love American ingenuity.

Thus, my closing point, actually a question, How can the gov. enact, and actually enforce, restrictions on having guns, without violating the rights of other citizens? They really can’t.

But still, most cities have a firearms not allowed to be discharged law.
Amusingly, NKC has one that fails to allow an exception for self defense.
So is this not govt. restricting activity?

But it’s a shame that the only folks this stuff impacts are “normal” citizens, as criminals will still get their weapons from elsewhere, so the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

[Unique_Carpenter]

But some folks simply have ATF permits

Iowa Gals having fun #1
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZfP6sY...yer_detailpage


Iowa Gals having fun #2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/HSTG_k...yer_detailpage

Montage of "2nd amendment Girls wanna have fun"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cv6ghM...yer_detailpage

[lawyerinjeans]

Okay, one last point. I find it highly ironic that gun proponents rely almost entirely, not on the right to have a gun to be part of a militia, but for personal safety and the safety of his/her family.. However, the possession of a firearm in the home is FAR more likely to result in the death of a family member in the home rather than the death of an intruder. That is just an empirical fact. No gun in the home? No little Johnny finding it and shooting his little brother. No drunk husband shooting his wife, or his neighbor, or his whole family, or commiting suicide. No accidental (or intentional) shooting of loved ones period. And, since more than 90% of home thefts occur while no one is home, theft of guns during burglaries put more guns in the hands of criminals than any other source. So the irony is, having a gun for protection creates far more danger to that which is sought to be protected, than the protection given by simply not having a gun in the first place.
Finally, in responding to my point about the issue of fear under stress of confrontation is likely to nulify any benefit of having a gun in the bedside table, you say that it takes exceptional training to overcome this. You are right. I went through all kinds of training before going to Viet Nam. But my friend, drawing a steady aim under duress is a matter of on the job training and no amount of classroom training will insure one's hand wont' be shaky when it needs to be steady. Again, the sense of safety of having a gun in the house is a false belief. But anyway, would requiring a fair degree of safety training before being allowed to own a gun an infringment of the 2nd Amendment?

[algrace]

Sounds like a couple tazers in the bedside tables would do as well or better with the kind of unintended consequences of firearms you've pointed out.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by lawyerinjeans

Okay, one last point. I find it highly ironic that gun proponents rely almost entirely, not on the right to have a gun to be part of a militia, but for personal safety and the safety of his/her family.. However, the possession of a firearm in the home is FAR more likely to result in the death of a family member in the home rather than the death of an intruder. That is just an empirical fact. No gun in the home? No little Johnny finding it and shooting his little brother. No drunk husband shooting his wife, or his neighbor, or his whole family, or commiting suicide. No accidental (or intentional) shooting of loved ones period. And, since more than 90% of home thefts occur while no one is home, theft of guns during burglaries put more guns in the hands of criminals than any other source. So the irony is, having a gun for protection creates far more danger to that which is sought to be protected, than the protection given by simply not having a gun in the first place.
Finally, in responding to my point about the issue of fear under stress of confrontation is likely to nulify any benefit of having a gun in the bedside table, you say that it takes exceptional training to overcome this. You are right. I went through all kinds of training before going to Viet Nam. But my friend, drawing a steady aim under duress is a matter of on the job training and no amount of classroom training will insure one's hand wont' be shaky when it needs to be steady. Again, the sense of safety of having a gun in the house is a false belief. But anyway, would requiring a fair degree of safety training before being allowed to own a gun an infringment of the 2nd Amendment?

For guns in the home you point out aspects of where some folks really don't understand the basic rules of gun safety.
Night stand? Only when in the bed. Otherwise, in the lock box.
Everyone that I know does just cringe at those stories and none of them ever never leaves a tool unattended in the open. It's a basic widely understood rule.
Personally, I've installed wall safes for folks to the point where I can do that blindfolded (btw for those that rent, landlords usually say no).
But getting back to the real issue you bring up: How can you regulate stupidity without taking away peoples rights?
Yes it does get back to training, and frankly, you mentioning that a while back was the only reason I'm in this banter with you, as I've said that I don't think much of the quick permit training.
And you bring up a key issue of training vs 2nd amend.
The 2d says "shall not be infringed", plain English and that courts have ruled, training not required. Thus we actually have open carry and we're left with basic training for a concealed permit, which all that does is get folks registered and at least sub basic training.
Way earlier in this thread I mentioned that back in Rev War days, just after which the 2nd was written, folks that had weapons did have the training/experience etc, (folks were putting meat on the table frequently). That is not the case nowadays and a weapon is simply not a frequently used tool for most folks. But the 2nd was written back then.
My closing point, repeated: How can you regulate stupidity without taking away peoples rights? Would that not lead to attempts to regulate other stupid things folks do?

And yes, Al's correct, there are other tools. But all take training.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I haven't read all of this. However.
My bedroom is on 2nd level.
When alone,
Gun in nightstand within reach.
Cell phone in the bedroom for 911.
House key attached to short stick/club. [when police arrive throw them the house key out window easy to find.]
When not alone [kids] gun is in safe.
I have taught my kids and theirs that if they are at a friends house and said friend says "Look here's my dad's gun" Turn, run don't talk. and yell for an adult.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

"So what? What is the point. I don't use this stuff anymore, just like a lot of people. Just because one has the knowledge does not mean that the knowledge will be used against one's own country.

exactly
ask anyone, "how do you get to a healthy weight?"
and most know how,
-exercise, caloric deficit to lose excess fat, eating "healthy""
but even with that knowledge, how many do that?

if any idiot carried a gun, how many people would get hurt?
I'm eager to find out, let everyone had a gun, automatic if possible!

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I
I have taught my kids and theirs that if they are at a friends house and said friend says "Look here's my dad's gun" Turn, run don't talk. and yell for an adult.

seems stupid
why do you want your kids to be friends with a kid who plays with a gun?

tell your kid to go home and let the "friend" play with the gun by himself

darwinisn works, but it needs a chance!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

seems stupid
why do you want your kids to be friends with a kid who plays with a gun?

tell your kid to go home and let the "friend" play with the gun by himself

darwinisn works, but it needs a chance!

Are you even remotely serious?

[Unique_Carpenter]

Luckily, she is. Others need to wake up.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Are you even remotely serious?

about what?
your kid not trying to stop a kid from being stupid?
yes
people need to mind their own business

I dont tell people at mcdonalds while I'm getting apple slices,
hey didnt you just eat?
or give them health advice

why would I?
so why give people unsolicted advice? take care of yourself and your kids

[Marcus Aurelius]