In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

[SUBMAN1]

Nice.

-S

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4990

Friday, June 19, 2009 NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate." That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What's the problem here? What exactly is so horrid about knowing who's got what?

[GoldenRivet]

"Mr. Goldenrivet, May we see your guns?"

"If you produce a warrant, otherwise... f*ck off and have a nice day."

What's the problem here? What exactly is so horrid about knowing who's got what?

Privacy is enormously valued in the United States... Uncle Sam needs to keep to himself.

[Sailor Steve]

Because the theory of the American system is that the government, and you, have no right to know anything about me except what I want you too. We have a census every ten years, and these days the forms are so complex and intrusive that I never answer any questions except the one required by the Constitution: "How many people live in your residence?" Everything else is specifically denied the government.

@ Subman1: I apologize, a little. That is one part of the Constitution that does indeed directly affect me, which means that that one part is for me "the law of the land".

[Kapitan_Phillips]

My point is, they specified border states, where I would think there would be illegal weapon smuggling. I understand your value of privacy, but where guns are concerned, I think its important to know where things are. That way, if one is stolen, it can be tracked and returned to you.

I think you're over-reacting just a little bit, to be honest. Over here, if you wish to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, the police keep a record of what you've got, and make a check in your home to ensure that you have the correct facilities to ensure that the weapon is stored safely and securely.

[GoldenRivet]

My point is, they specified border states, where I would think there would be illegal weapon smuggling. I understand your value of privacy, but where guns are concerned, I think its important to know where things are. That way, if one is stolen, it can be tracked and returned to you.

I think you're over-reacting just a little bit, to be honest. Over here, if you wish to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, the police keep a record of what you've got, and make a check in your home to ensure that you have the correct facilities to ensure that the weapon is stored safely and securely.

This is why it is important for the owner to inventory his firearms, record types of firearms and associated serial numbers. - if a firearm goes missing he can then provide the authorities with the information

once compiled this list should be copied in triplicate, one copy palced in a fireproof - waterproof case, one copy placed in a bank safe deposit box, and the third copy placed off premisis at a safe, reliable third location of your choosing.

when i was 12 years old, my father and I went through all 130 firearms in our home, compiled a list of types and serial numbers for the firearms, along with serial numbers (or descriptions if SNs unavailable) of each accessory (scope, sheath, bayonet, bi-pod, holster etc.)

a responsible gun owner will do this - and revise the list whenever new firearms are added to the collection.

i consider a purpose built combination safe to be a reliable and appropriate place to store firarms of virtually any size or caliber. the police or the ATF or FBI dont need to know JACK about what i have.

the revolutionary war was a long time ago, but in many american minds - it wasnt THAT long ago.

the reason the government doesnt need to know what i have in my home is because the government might be the very oppressive entity i may one day have to fight against... my firearms are not just for criminals. it happened once in america - and no matter how far out it might sound... it could happen again.

[Sailor Steve]

Over here, if you wish to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, the police keep a record of what you've got, and make a check in your home to ensure that you have the correct facilities to ensure that the weapon is stored safely and securely.
And that's part of the reason why we're not "over here" anymore. Literally.

[GoldenRivet]

And that's part of the reason why we're not "over here" anymore. Literally.


agreed :salute:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

This is why it is important for the owner to inventory his firearms, record types of firearms and associated serial numbers. - if a firearm goes missing he can then provide the authorities with the information


Ah-kay, point taken.

[Jimbuna]

In Britain it is said "An Englishmans home is his castle".

I readily admit it is even more so in the US...especially where firearms are concerned.

[Stealth Hunter]

Who are these people they requested serials from? That's what I'd like to find out before I took a side on this particular issue.

[GoldenRivet]

Who are these people they requested serials from? That's what I'd like to find out before I took a side on this particular issue.

i dont care if its bonnie and clyde in a fortified house with billy the kid, the hole in the wall gang and bin laden...

without a warrant - it doesnt matter who they are :shifty:

from the article it sounds to be law abiding NRA members

[Stealth Hunter]

without a warrant - it doesnt matter who they are

Well really it does matter, because if these people have a history of gun smuggling (big problem down here) or have been caught in the past with an illegal firearm, the government should have every right to check on what weapons they own and get detailed information about them.

[GoldenRivet]

the government should have every right to check on what weapons they own and get detailed information about them.

yes... with a warrant :up:

if they have that history - obtaining a warrant should be a piece of cake, or should we ALL eventually just open our doors to Obama and his gestapo clowns no questions asked?

Are you new to America?

[Stealth Hunter]

yes... with a warrant

A warrant should not be a mandatory requirement for that kind of situation, simply because of the amount of time it would and could take (time enough to dispose of any evidence) and the fact you're dealing with a convicted felon who has shown no regard for the law in the past.

But in regards to good and upstanding citizens with no criminal background (as of then), I think the standard warrant laws we're using right now should be kept (so one would not be needed if the citizen agreed to let the law search their home and obtain information on firearms they have, but one would be needed if they refused).

if they have that history - obtaining a warrant should be a piece of cake,

That's hardly guaranteed given how many of these judges can be.

or should we ALL eventually just open our doors to Obama and his gestapo clowns no questions asked?

I have no trouble doing it. But then again, I'm only one person with nothing to hide.:03:

Are you new to America?

If you think asking for information about guns in this kind of manner is an authoritarian thing to do (as bad as the Gestapo's tactics apparently lol), then Golden, you have never lived in a country or even been CLOSE to a country with an actual authoritarian government, and you would not last long in one either...

I'm lucky to be living under these kinds of laws (I could be a lot worse off right now), and so are you, quite frankly. As I result, I'm not going to complain. But if you want to that's your right.:03: Just my two cents.

[GoldenRivet]

A warrant should not be a mandatory requirement for that kind of situation

what exactly do you think the situation is?

they knocked on the door... asked to see firearms - owner said no - they got pushy and threatened him with legal actions.

no - thats not how it works.

But in regards to good and upstanding citizens with no criminal background (as of then), I think the standard warrant laws we're using right now should be kept.

those "good and upstanding citizens" are specifically the people being targeted. - did you even read the article?

i stick to my guns here... if the cops knocked on my door without a warrant and i have done nothing wrong (or hell - even if i had) and they wanted to see anything in my house - out of sheer curiosity - i would tell them to take a piss - its that simple.

what the ATF is doing here is wrong. period. - sure they can come and knock and ask nicely to see my guns... of course i will say "no" - but because i answer "no" doesnt mean they should resort to bullying and threatening.

I have no trouble doing it. But then again, I'm only one person with nothing to hide.:03:

i myself have absolutely nothing to hide, however i am far right - anti big government and these clowns would get no respect from me or cooperation if they cannot follow simple due process that they might learn in YEAR ONE of their law enforcement classes.

If you think asking for information about guns in this kind of manner is an authoritarian thing to do

I do think that. these ATF bums are supposedly professional law enforcement officers - and to threaten innocent individuals with some sort of completely made up action against the individual if they dont cooperate is BS, its bullying and it is completely authoritarian.


I'm lucky to be living under these kinds of laws (I could be a lot worse off right now), and so are you, quite frankly. As I result, I'm not going to complain. But if you want to that's your right.:03: Just my two cents.

what are you talking about?

im not complaining about the laws - im complaining about the Law Enforcement Officers complete and utter disregard for due process.

i know it could be a lot worse... and my home FULL of firearms is the only thing which keeps it from being "a lot worse".

when the left half of this nation kills all religion and prys my gun from my cold dead hands - they can do whatever the "F" they want.

until then i intend to hold on very tightly to both

[ETR3(SS)]

I've got an idea for punishment for these "officers." Since they're attempting to infringe on the rights of American citizens, maybe we should take their rights away for a little while. Since they don't think the rules apply to them...:nope:

[August]

I'm lucky to be living under these kinds of laws (I could be a lot worse off right now), and so are you, quite frankly. As I result, I'm not going to complain. But if you want to that's your right.:03: Just my two cents.

That somebody has it worse than you is no reason not to defend what you have SH lest you eventually find yourself in their shoes.

[SUBMAN1]

That somebody has it worse than you is no reason not to defend what you have SH lest you eventually find yourself in their shoes.

Let him go. He is just stirring the pot.

-S

[Buddahaid]

im not complaining about the laws - im complaining about the Law Enforcement Officers complete and utter disregard for due process.

i know it could be a lot worse... and my home FULL of firearms is the only thing which keeps it from being "a lot worse".

when the left half of this nation kills all religion and prys my gun from my cold dead hands - they can do whatever the "F" they want.

until then i intend to hold on very tightly to both

I consider myself to be on the left side, and I own three firearms for the very reason you state. I'm not anti-gun, but I never felt compelled to own one until after 9-11 when the Bill of Rights was being dismantled in the name of security. I think you see left and right as black and white a bit too much. I do believe in a strong military as the world, and man, still has a lot of growing up to do. I applaud your efforts to keep your weapons responsibly, but the problem arises from those who don't or can't, and like all other things, it takes only a few to mess it up for all. My uncle in Texas deals in firearms, but never will join the NRA whom he considers run by an idiot. My point being this is not about taking sides and I feel just as strongly as you about my rights and privacy.

Buddahaid

I might add that before the firearms I collected about fifteen airguns of various types and ages. The oldest being a Daisy MD25 from about 1920.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Let him go. He is just stirring the pot.

-S

...:hmmm:

[Platapus]

Few expressions will invoke stronger emotional responses from Americans than the expression:

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the Government.

It is just part of the American culture. We, as a people, tend to distrust our government. This is why the various constitutions are written from a point of prohibiting action (Congress/State will not...) as opposed to permitting action (Congress/State can...). When the government is permitted to take action, it will be carefully defined as to provide limits and restrictions on the part of the government.

Constitutions of other nations do not always follow the American style.

[Onkel Neal]

Source: NRA
Credibility: Low

[ETR3(SS)]

Source: NRA
Credibility: Low

I have to agree with Neal there. I own eight or so guns. I'm not a member of the NRA. And I am neither left nor right. The NRA has an agenda just like PETA has their agenda. Not saying the NRA's is bad, just have to take what they say with a little skepticism. Now if it is credible, see my earlier post. If not...meh

[Max2147]

The key word here is "asks." There's nothing wrong with ATF asking to see people's guns, even if they don't have a warrant.

Now, if they demand to see the guns and threaten the owner with arrest if they fail to comply, then there's a violation of rights if they don't have a warrant. But I don't see that in this case. Reading that letter, I get the impression that the gun owner is perfectly free to give the answer that GoldenRivet gave in Reply #3.

The NRA letter mentions one case of an overzealous agent apparently getting a bit hot under the collar, but I don't think one case should be seen as a trend.

It's pretty clear what the ATF is trying to do here - catch smugglers who are illegally smuggling weapons into Mexico. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[GoldenRivet]

The key word here is "asks." There's nothing wrong with ATF asking to see people's guns, even if they don't have a warrant.

Agreed.

Now, if they demand to see the guns and threaten the owner with arrest if they fail to comply, then there's a violation of rights if they don't have a warrant.

This is what the article is saying allegedly happened.

But I don't see that in this case.

we may never find out the truth, however reading the article it appears that at least one individual was threatened with action by an officer.

The NRA letter mentions one case of an overzealous agent apparently getting a bit hot under the collar, but I don't think one case should be seen as a trend.

again I agree, however - the minute the agent puts his badge on in the morning before work - he becomes a professional and a representative of the United States Government's bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. regardless of whether or not it is a one time offense or a trend - it is reckless, irresponsible, and unprofessional.

It's pretty clear what the ATF is trying to do here - catch smugglers who are illegally smuggling weapons into Mexico. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Agreed as well... i don't think anyone here thinks it is wrong to try to catch wrong doers - but there is a process used for catching the bad guys - it should be strictly adhered to.

if you wish to cooperate with the ATF on this issue - good for you.

if you do NOT wish to cooperate with the ATF thats fine too.

but you shouldn't be strong armed over the latter decision.

:up:

[SteamWake]

What defines a 'border state' and why would they be singled out?

[Buddahaid]

They're the states bordering on Mexico which is having major problems with drug related violence to the tune of 5,000 murders a year, or some such number. Many of the guns are smuggled into Mexico by nice upstanding citizens of the USA. Efforts are underway to curtail the illegal gun trade which is what this threads first post is describing. This is really an ugly, ugly mess that seems to be getting worse.

Buddahaid

[Aramike]

I have no trouble doing it. But then again, I'm only one person with nothing to hide.:03:That is an absolute surrendering of freedom and people should be afraid if the government starts using "its no problem if you've got nothing to hide".

Where does it stop, in your mind? Should the government be able to randomly inspect every single home at any time for any reason? Should that be okay with people because they've got nothing to hide?

[Stealhead]

You know if you think about it all a law enforcement officer needs in proable cause and a dishonest one could just come up with something.

I have a very good friend(lets call him Mr.X) who lives in Baltimore he had a not so good day once. While stopped at a carwash a man came walking over from the rear of Mr.X truck(S-10). Mr.X happened to be standing beside his open drivers side door when he noticed that the man was bent over and had a knife in his hand. Seeing that this guy was clearly about to at the least attempt to rob him Mr.X reached in back of the bench seat and pulled out and aimed his .22 caliber semi-auto(i dont know the model or make)rifle at the the mans neck at about the same point the man pressed the knife close to Mr.X stomach.

Unknown to the attacker the .22 was not loaded. Mr.X had been out zeroing the scope before stopping at the carwash and of course properly cleared the weapon and placed the magazines inside his glovebox along with the bullets.(Mexican Stand Off!!!) Clearly Mr.X had to bluff the knife man and hope that he did not see that the weapon had no magazine.

Mr.X told the knife man to step away and place his knife on the ground or be shot.(he was already leaning away at bit but still held the knife in a therating manner) Knife man claimed the gun was not loaded Mr.X said it was and advised knife man that finding out if it was or not was not a viable option if knife man desired to live.(note orginal language of encounter has been omitted)Anyway after a few tense moments Mr.X got the man to place his knife on the ground after this knifeless man ran away.

So Mr.X placed his .22 rifle back behind the bench seat. He did not call the cops figuring that they knife man learned that his life style might not be so wise after all. What Mr.X did not know at the time was that a woman near by saw this Mexican Standoff and belived Mr.X to be the robber not the victim.a few minutes later two BPD walked over to Mr.X asking him if he had seen anything "strange" lately Mr.X said "no just that a man pulled a knife on me and I stopped him and he ran away".(realizing that this was why they where there.)

The BPD advised that Mr.X fit the description of a reported armed robber (the dip**** woman calling in) and they did the "you are not under arrest but we will restarin you for our safety"(in case you dont know if you refuse you WILL be arrested) and went through his truck. They NEVER asked if there was anything inside his truck before searching it. Of course they found the .22 cal rifle,magazines, and bullets resulting in the Sgt. saying "oh what do we have here?" Sgt.cop kept searching Mr.X truck while lower ranking cop talked to Mr.X(he belived Mr.X to be the victim of a crime not the perp) Good cop went over and talked to Sgt.cop and came back to Mr.X and advised him that he had told Sgt. that he belived Mr.X was not the perp and that the only thing they could do is get him on the imporperly stored firearm. Sgt.Cop did not like this and came over to Mr.X and said "You must be a ****ing idiot." Mr.X(he is a little crazy and never backs down form a fight) said "Why am I stupid that guy pulled a knife on me I have the right to defend myself and I did."

Sgt. said "You are lying and you robbed someone and now you are going to jail." Mr.X again told the entire story and the reason he had the gun inside his truck in the first place and admitted that he should not have stored it that way but also that had he not have sgt. would be here for the murder of Mr.X. At this point though good cop and several civilans who had seen what happened where presentsgt.dick pulled Mr.X up by the collar and said "I will break your ****ing neck." Mr.X said "Do it then in front of all these people."Anyway they locked Mr.X up even though good cop did not think he should have been sgt. made it so.

Anyway Mr.X got saved by good cop who had written a report about the things sgt.dick had done to Mr.X and the judge ruled that Mr.X in fact did nothing wrong beyond the improperly stored firearm. But damn it could have been much worse for Mr.X.

Personaly I dont commit crimes but I do not trust law enforcement their goal is to arrest anyone and everyone just keep that in mind.It is their word aginst yours and unless you get very lucky like Mr.X did you are screwed.I am not saying all cops are bad you just have no way of knowing when you are dealing with one who has integrity or lacks it.

You guys fail to think in a guerrilla warfare fasion you dont want all your guns at your house you want a weapons cashe in a place they wont find it think about it.You guys fear the goverment someday do this or that you wont last long with all your guns and no fighters with you that is why you need the cashe in a place you dont own.:hmmm: Just for that I bet someone is gonna be coming to my house now.:har: Bring it I will get Sun Zu on their ass.:smug:

By the way I do own firearms(legaly) and have never nor will I ever be a member of the NRA.The same can be said for every person that I know who owns firearms including MR.X.If you want be 100% free to own any weapon you want move to Somalia or a simular central goverment lacking nation of course then you wont last long as the milita in this type of place will simplty kill you but you will get to shoot that fully auto M-16 and maybe kill one or two of them before they kill you.

And with all the civil wars and drugs in Central and South America there ahs got to be a ****load of illegal stockpiled weapons down there dude the crimnals there well outgun the cops I saw a documentary on the slums of Rio de Janerio these guys had M-16 CAR-15 AK-47s andeven one of them had a CAR-15 with an M203 the cops just had M-16 CAR-15 AR-70 and a single MG21 but nothing like an M203 and they mainly had just pistols while every single slum gang member had an automatic weapon. I am going to say it is a very safe bet that the overwhelming majority of the guns being used in Mexico are from south of thier border not north of it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You guys fail to think in a guerrilla warfare fasion you dont want all your guns at your house you want a weapons cashe in a place they wont find it think about it.You guys fear the goverment someday do this or that you wont last long with all your guns and no fighters with you that is why you need the cashe in a place you dont own.:hmmm: Just for that I bet someone is gonna be coming to my house now.:har: Bring it I will get Sun Tzu on their ass.:smug:


Best comment in thread:up:

[Max2147]

So a story about one crazy cop is reason enough to not trust all of law enforcement, even though that same story includes a good cop?

[GoldenRivet]

So a story about one crazy cop is reason enough to not trust all of law enforcement, even though that same story includes a good cop?

i have an entire section of my family in the state trooper force.

all of them tell me "don't trust a cop you don't know personally."

fortunately they are all "pro-gun rights" - i just hope there are more like them.

[GoldenRivet]

You guys fail to think in a guerrilla warfare fasion you dont want all your guns at your house you want a weapons cashe in a place they wont find it think about it.You guys fear the goverment someday do this or that you wont last long with all your guns and no fighters with you that is why you need the cashe in a place you dont own.:hmmm: Just for that I bet someone is gonna be coming to my house now.:har: Bring it I will get Sun Zu on their ass.:smug:

have you any idea how many remote Texas Ranches their are down here?

:03:

[Tchocky]

all of them tell me "don't trust a cop you don't know personally."

Really?

huh.

[GoldenRivet]

think about it... it is sometimes their job to extract incriminating information from you... ALWAYS exercise your right to remain silent

EDIT: (this is more along the lines if what they and I mean buy not trusting them)

[FIREWALL]

This is a NO-BRAINER. The ATF is not above the LAW.

At least in the USA so far.

[roman2440]

I realize I'm not adding anything new but here's my thoughts:

1) There's nothing wrong with politely asking

2) Anything more, such as threats, demands, and forcable entry are completely wrong.

A warrent is required if the homeowner doesn't acquiesce to a polite request.

However, knowing what its like on the border (I live in Phoenix AZ, and had a good friend that lived very close to the border) things can get very isolated. I wouldn't be surprised if a government agency used that isolation to intimidate or bully a homeowner to get their way. And because of that I'd expect some very high levels of attention in the oversight of ATF that is running this program.

[Stealhead]

have you any idea how many remote Texas Ranches their are down here?

:03:


Yeah but they still know where you are.And if they where the goverment wishing to take your guns and you said no the the goverment will send massive firepower to take them. so you stay at your house and die or you go the guerrilla warfare route I am the only person who see this? They would want you to be isolated hello.Think outside the box man.This is where americans get tricked we want have the my land i will die on it way of thinking. I think I will take you down by moving and fighting not by simply satying on my land and letting myself die you may as well just shot yourself before they get there.A peice of land can be surronded a mobile guerrilla cant be and only attacks when it can win. ;)

And you really should not trust a cop unless you called for thier help yourself. My friend just got very lucky that the good cop did do something but it was not his actions alone that hepled out and if the bad cop has more power than the good cop the cood cops job could easily be in danger sometimes if you have mouths to feed you may have no choice but to do nothing. I think of tons of close encounters with ******* cops or have witnessed what I would call questionable actions buy cops. God forbid you have a run in with of the roid raging ones then you will know what I mean.

[Sailor Steve]

i have an entire section of my family in the state trooper force.

all of them tell me "don't trust a cop you don't know personally."

fortunately they are all "pro-gun rights" - i just hope there are more like them.
In the middle of a gun-control discussion I once actually heard a cop have fun with an old cliche. His version: "If guns are outlawed, only cops will have guns. Do you feel safer now? I don't."

He also once told me he considered an armed citizen to be his most reliable back-up.

He also espoused the belief that ex-felons who had served their time should not be restricted from owning firearms. Not ones who were on parole, but ones who had completed their sentences. "After all", he said, "they've 'paid their debt to society', haven't they? If that's the case, don't they have the same right to defend what's theirs as anyone else?"

[Aramike]

He also espoused the belief that ex-felons who had served their time should not be restricted from owning firearms. Not ones who were on parole, but ones who had completed their sentences. "After all", he said, "they've 'paid their debt to society', haven't they? If that's the case, don't they have the same right to defend what's theirs as anyone else?" I disagree with this. Part of their debt to society is to forfeit any right to own firearms.

If that mattered to them, they should have thought about it before they became felons.

[Sailor Steve]

Different people, different ideas. I'm undecided on that point myself.

[Stealhead]

I think it would be fair that if the felon had used a firearm or any weapon during thier crime they should never be allowed to own again.Though it doesnt really matter because they most likely got the firearm they used illegaly anyway.

[Jimbuna]

I think it would be fair that if the felon had used a firearm or any weapon during thier crime they should never be allowed to own again.Though it doesnt really matter because they most likely got the firearm they used illegaly anyway.

Quite possibly, but not for certain. I'm sure many crimes involving firearms are of the legally owned variety.

[August]

I disagree with this. Part of their debt to society is to forfeit any right to own firearms.

If that mattered to them, they should have thought about it before they became felons.

Like Steve i'm kinda torn on that issue. Normally i'd agree with you but I personally know a couple felons who I believe deserve their RKBA back, along with their right to vote.

[Aramike]

Like Steve i'm kinda torn on that issue. Normally i'd agree with you but I personally know a couple felons who I believe deserve their RKBA back, along with their right to vote.In most (I think) states felons can vote once their sentences (including parole/probation/supervision/etc are completed.

Edit: I found a chart explaining this -
http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=286

Upon examining the issue, I think I might agree with you in that CERTAIN felons should have gun rights restored, but I believe there should be special restrictions on it (psychological evaluations, permits, etc). And VIOLENT felons, or any who have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime, should never be allowed weapons IMO.

[Stealhead]

I think the rights you lose/gain back for being a felon depend on state some states they take your right to vote for life others once you have done your time you get it back. I suppose they may do the same in some states when it comes to firearms. But really some seem to think that you some how cant defend yourself by other means not all bad people use guns you can f..... someone up with your bare hands if you need to even if they have a weapon look up some of the military martial arts out there now.(I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man) you should be able to defend yourself without a gun. In fact I think personaly many people get a false feeling of securtiy from owning a gun.

[August]

(I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man)

Don't get old or have health issues then because you might find yourself becoming that which you do not respect. I mean don't you think it's a bit much to ask an octogenarian to engage in fisticuffs?

[GoldenRivet]

steelhead... i think thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. (while i do understand your underlying point - it comes across as "macho")

if a man comes into your house with a colt .45 and your standing there in your sponge bob square pants PJs ...

... what the hell are you going to do? fist fight him?

no - he is going to put your brains all over the wall brother!

"never bring a knife to a gun fight." is a quote that comes to mind.

[Buddahaid]

"I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man."

I vote for change a flat tyre. Bl**dy American English spelling! :rotfl:

Buddahaid

[sh3rules]

This is a NO-BRAINER. The ATF is not above the LAW.

At least in the USA so far.


One word: Waco

Sure, they lost a few guys but… the government has no problem rolling out the tanks. They shouldn’t (Posse Comitatus and all that) but still…

Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&ei=pzlASpvMM5-w2AK5tryWBQ&q=Waco&hl=en&dur=3)

[Stealhead]

There is a very good chance that you could have a gun right on your dresser fully loaded(not very smart for saftey) and you could be sound asleep someone be beside you with an M1911 .45 and blow your head off. Unless you are going to sit there where ever you are with a fully loaded gun in your hand all the time you cant 100% protect yourself with a gun.

There is this general feeling out there that there are millions of evil doers waiting to shot you with a gun and that means that you must have a gun as well. to be honest I am not nor have I even been very worried about anyone ever trying to harm me(apart from the time I was in Iraq)I own guns mainly because I have an interest in the engineering of them.I honestly dont feel any safer with a gun. It seems like people think of a gun a an insurence policy that nothing bad will ever happen to you. And here is something many dont even think of what if the person who is going to attack you with a gun is a better and faster shot than you? Guess what then you die. Id say if a guy comes into my house first off he is going to have to deal with my German Sheppard Dasha(which he probably wont survie) then if I was too far away form my gun locker and had no time I would lay in ambush and disarm the man or at(I had a Green Berret show me some stuff once trust me it works there are ways to kill man by hand no matter what he has for a weapon and that is not being macho that is using your brains and employing the most effective weapon on earth the human body.)If the guy killed me well then I would say that god decided that my time was up nothing you can do about that when you are called you are called you could have all the guns in the world not gonna change it.But I not going to worry about it viloent crimes are actualy pretty rare. You are infinately more likely to die in a car accident than you are by someone with a gun shooting you.And I dont waste my time fearing things I choose to enjoy my life.The thing with the media is if it bleeds it leads and viloent crimes are better for ratings. More people die in one year in car accidents than service members died in the 10 or so years that we where in Vietnam.

And it is Stealhead not Steelhead I meant for it to be ae inplace of ee. You also are not my brother(kin wise or socialy).And I dont wear Sponge Bob PJ's either. I prefer GI Joe PJ's my wife thinks they are sexy.:yeah: And I bring my brain to any fight you will need that more than any form of weapon the weapon is useless without your brain.And by the way you describe the M1911 .45 situation no matter what your ****ed if you are standing face to face and he simply shots you. But you seem to fail to think that if the man gets close enough you have a chance to take the weapon this has happened many times take a look at those cameras at gas stations if you dont belive me and those people often had no hand to hand training. You I guess would say oh crap evil doer is it ok if I go get my gun it is in by bedroom? Or even if you had it in reach you must still grab,pull the slide, and flick the saftey(assuming it is an automatic) so he still has the drop on you.Myself even with no gun at the very least my actions would buy time for my wife and daughter to get away or at the least hide in the room where the gun locker is and the M1911 .45 man even if he kills me he aint getting in that door with out a double tap to the torso and head.But it would be smarter to get away from the house not stay in it.

I dont know why people use these stupid what ifs anyway.Nothing goes according to plan so if someone just owns guns and thinks that will make them safe they are wrong. Soliders have firearms all the time yet they still die in battle I rest my case.:nope:

I really should have sadi your not much of a human if you cant defend yourself hand to hand somewhat. there was no underlying point to that satement. Apperantly it shone a light on your faith in the mighty gun and exposed an underlying truth and that hurt you.Sorry I suggest you take some Krav Maga classes this stuff was designed for one purpose for Isreali special forces soliders to kill in hand to hand combat a foe using any wepaon the **** is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDKTFtcfopU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYq8EueDYNM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07jnqD8wvyE&feature=fvw
some unskilled people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdwDnl6dSPs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-_YNfNJFYM&feature=related
Look the dip**** robbers gun failed that could with any gun no matter how well kept.

[Buddahaid]

I dont know why people use these stupid what ifs anyway.Nothing goes according to plan so if someone just owns guns and thinks that will make them safe they are wrong. Soliders have firearms all the time yet they still die in battle I rest my case.:nope:

I was with that up until the soldiers in battle part. That is a bit different. However, I do agree in general. The three firearms I own are all pretty old pieces of history, but I do keep two loaded magazines with the 1919 M1911 just in case it may help. It resides unloaded and locked up in the basement, and would be of no value in a home invasion, but like you said, nothing really goes as planned.

Buddahaid

[Aramike]

Stealhead, your premises are highly flawed. Starting with this:And I bring my brain to any fight you will need that more than any form of weapon the weapon is useless without your brain.And by the way you describe the .45 situation no matter what your ****ed if you are standing face to face and he simply shots you. But you seem to fail to think that if the man gets close enough you have a chance to take the weapon this has happened many times take a look at those cameras at gas stations if you dont belive me and those people often had no hand to hand training. In this example you're relying on a person with a RANGED weapon to get within hand-to-hand range. Yes, I could have a gun on my dresser that a criminal could take. Or, I could have a gun in my nightstand next to my bed that, odds are, the invader won't find before I grab and unlock it.

No one is implying that simply owning guns is what would make them safe, so it is pointless for you to argue that idea. The fact is that it is idiotic to make the statement that a man who can't defend themselves with their hands isn't a man - plain lunacy, pure and simple. Defend themselves against what? What if the invader is a better fighter than the defender? To emphasize, that statement is pure wannabe macho BS.

How about this scenario - you hear an armed man breaking into your home. You grab your gun and get the drop on HIM. Would you be able to do that with your bare hands?

Unlikely, no matter how macho you think it sounds to say otherwise.

There's a reason that police are armed...

[GoldenRivet]

Soliders have firearms all the time yet they still die in battle

but studies overwhelmingly show...

... soldiers that have rifles are much more effective than the soldiers that dont.

:haha:

my closing argument is now complete


I rest my case.

so, Jury? whats the verdict?

send soldiers into war with rifles... or.... without rifles?

all im saying is, if my door opens at night, my alarm system goes off (or the large bells attached to all the door nobs ring) the intruder WILL be greeted by the business end of a firearm from about 10 paces while my wife calls the police.

movement in any direction except out the door from whence you entered will result in numerous nickle sized bleeding holes suddenly appearing in your torso.

no requests, no demands, no discussion, just loud reports followed by the sound of the burglar's lifeless body falling onto the tile floor.

sorry dude... i have been a victim of violent crime, and you cannot ever convince me to bring Rosie Palm to a gun fight.

its just not going to happen.

[Max2147]

There's a reason that police are armed...
.... in some countries.

I can see the logic behind owning a gun, and I understand why some people feel safer with it.

I personally think a gun is too powerful for me. I don't trust myself enough to own something with that kind of lethal force. I fear that if I had a gun next to my bed I'd be more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder, either out of panic or though an accidental shot. I know that gun owners are supposed to go through training to ensure that neither of those happen, but when I've just been woken up by a strange noise, my head is a bit groggy, and I'm terrified, I'm not sure I'd be able to trust myself to remember all the training. That would be a very bad time for me to have lethal force in my hands.

But that's just my personal case. I can see how guns make sense for some people, I just don't happen to be one of those people.

[Stealhead]

See you keep patronizing me I dont care what you think really.And I doubt that you have really been a violent crime victim you are just saying that to add creabilty to your view. If this was such an important part of your view you would have mentioned it as an example in your first post.You sound kind of paranoid to be honest.I was never trying to convince anyone of anything but that is funny that you feel that way it shows a lack of confidence in your self and your skills.Though it basicly shows that you dont like what I had to say.But I said it didnt I?

You are very "smart" if you think I was implying that soliders should not carry weapons they have good reason to. My point was the simple fact that they have a weapon does not insure that they will not be killed learn to read.I am saying that a viloent person could attack and have a gun pointed at you before you can get to your gun or they may hit you with bullets before you hit them and if that happens your gun has done nothing for you.Sometimes both the attacker and the victim have both shot eachother and both died in that case they both failed in their goal the attacker did not get what they wanted and the defender failed thier goal which was not to die.:nope:

You can keep talking I was not trying convince you of anything so you honestly are wasting your time. What i said is there can easily be a time when Roise Palm is you ronly weapon and if you dont know how to use it well that is your lose.:yeah:



And saying that you will blow the guy away with a gun is not macho? Get lost that is the thing about the general topicc people want to pervert a valid point into something it was not.
You are failing to take into account that in 90% of violent crimes the gun holder has to get close enough to rob the person or do what ever else they plan on doing.You guys saying that my statement that you should be prepared to defend yourself with just your hands is stupid is stupid. It is foolish to say that you must rely on a gun to protect yourself when there are times when a gun wont be at hand for you to use.A person who is truly prepared to defend oneself should be able to by any means aviable even is it is thier hands hell you need your hands to use the damn gun if you had one clue darts.

Keep going "dudes" this is so fun just to see you guys go off it is better the network TV.
At least some people see what I am saying like Buddahaid and at August back in the 1980s where I live an 85 year old woman got held up by a man with a gun she took the gun from him in a struggle and broke the mans arm have a little more faith in the human body it can do amazing things.the whole
(I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man) was supposed to a bit sarcastic.I am just saying you should be able to defend yourself with anything aviable and you could have any weapon and the attacker could still harm or kill you.

[Buddahaid]

Uh... What training are you referring to? I'm in lefty pansy California* and the only training needed to buy a gun is money. Or in the case of a handgun, money and a handgun safety certificate, which is about as hard as getting a driver's license (choose the safest sounding answer and show you can load and unload).

Buddahaid

*Only valid in major metropolitan areas. Some restrictions apply.

[Aramike]

.... in some countries.

I can see the logic behind owning a gun, and I understand why some people feel safer with it.

I personally think a gun is too powerful for me. I don't trust myself enough to own something with that kind of lethal force. I fear that if I had a gun next to my bed I'd be more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder, either out of panic or though an accidental shot. I know that gun owners are supposed to go through training to ensure that neither of those happen, but when I've just been woken up by a strange noise, my head is a bit groggy, and I'm terrified, I'm not sure I'd be able to trust myself to remember all the training. That would be a very bad time for me to have lethal force in my hands.

But that's just my personal case. I can see how guns make sense for some people, I just don't happen to be one of those people.That's completely fair, and I like your perspective and honest assessment of your capabilities.

[Aramike]

You are failing to take into account that in 90% of violent crimes the gun holder has to get close enough to rob the person or do what ever else they plan on doing.Where did you get this statistic? Me thinks you pulled it from your behind... :yeah:You guys saying that my statement that you should be prepared to defend yourself with just your hands is stupid is stupid. It is foolish to say that you must rely on a gun to protect yourself when there are times when a gun wont be at hand for you to use.A person who is truly prepared to defend should be able to by any means aviable even is it is thier hands hell you need your hands to use the damn gun if had one clue darts.Umm, no one is disputing that. We are taking issue with this silly statement you made:(I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man) This statement is completely unqualified as it does not address what the man would be defending themself against. Secondly, you've backtracked on yourself with this statement:And by the way you describe the .45 situation no matter what your ****ed if you are standing face to face and he simply shots you.So considering the failure of a "man" to defend himself with his hands against someone who just shoots them, does that make him not a man?

The fact that you keep attempting to present the silly argument that most armed confrontations one should be able to defend themselves with their hands shows that you have little understanding of the issue and are really just posturing (unimpressively, I might add).

And, for any of you younger folks out there that may be reading this, if someone gets the drop on you with a gun, don't do what Stealhead suggests. That's a good way to get yourself killed, stupidly.

[GoldenRivet]

Uh... What training are you referring to? I'm in lefty pansy California* and the only training needed to buy a gun is money. Or in the case of a handgun, money and a handgun safety certificate, which is about as hard as getting a driver's license (choose the safest sounding answer and show you can load and unload).

Buddahaid

*Only valid in major metropolitan areas. Some restrictions apply.

wow... some classes i have taken, the instructor will make you take the firearm apart, piece it back together, and function check it.

you also learn not to point the firearm at anything you dont intend to kill.

you learn how to deal with threats with loud booming aggressive shouting

"STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!!! , GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!!!"

(you know... loud and in your face like you see on that show "cops")

its quite fun really.

in the end you have to empty the entire magazine into a standard 8.5x11 piece of computer paper and only one round can miss... this is accomplished from a distance of about 3 - 5 feet depending on the firearm used. this helps determine your threshold - a sort of comfort zone which- once penetrated the attacker has a greater chance of disarming you by hand.

the trick is - the only time the attacker should be inside this zone is if he falls into it... dead.

[Stealhead]

Again sir(Aramike) you are not very smart. You are just the type who goes into general topics and picks fights and trys to break down what others say. Like I said it is very intertaing(in other words you doing what you are doing is making me laugh my ass off):03:

Break that one down for us all if you will sir.
At least GoldenRivet is largerly forming his own opnion rather than breaking down each thing I say.Also yuo guys fail to see the effect of a large dog which I own this dog is always on guard and will alert when anyhting out of the norm is near long before anything like an alarm will further more hearing a large dangerous dog barking is going to be a deterant for most people because that adds an aniamal that could likely kill the intending attacker and at least it alerts the home owner.
Here is another one for you to break down;What is the velocity of a Sparrow?


And young kids do what ever the hell you want to do but my saying be able to defend by ANY means and them saying no you must have a gun. I think if you have any brains in your head you can see what is wiser.If you rely on only one thing you are harming but yourself.I am going to bed now. Dont worry about me I will ok.

[Aramike]

Again sir(Aramike) you are not very smart. You are just the type who goes into general topics and picks fights and trys to break down what others say. Like I said it is very intertaing(in other words you doing what you are doing is making me laugh my ass off):03:Sure, buddy. You're the one recommending bringing a knife to a gun fight and then calling ME not smart. Good luck selling that one.Break that one down for us all if you will sir.
At least GoldenRivet is largerly forming his own opnion rather than breaking down each thing I say.Umm, can you read? I have a very clear opinion on the matter which I've stated several times, which I happen to share with GR. Nice attempt to turn the same side against each other (right).

Oh, by the way - a "smart" person knows that an opinion can exist regardless of whether or not another's statements have been "broken down". I actually do that as a courtesy, so people know that I'm not simply dodging their points.Also yuo guys fail to see the effect of a large dog which I own this dog is always on guard and will alert when anyhting out of the norm is near long before anything like an alarm will further more hearing a large dangerous dog barking is going to be a deterant for most people because that adds an aniamal that could likely kill the intending attacker and at least it alerts the home owner.Hmm, something else you add to the equation AFTER the matter. Memo to Stealhead - we're talking about guns versus fists against an unarmed intruder. Your dog is irrelevent.And young kids do what ever the hell you want to do but my saying be able to defend by ANY means and them saying no you must have a gun. I think if you have any brains in your head you can see what is wiser.If you rely on only one thing you are harming but yourself.I am going to bed now. Dont worry about me I will ok. I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I suspect it would be much easier to read if you employed proper English and grammar (something that "smart" people like you ought to be able to do quite easily).

Too bad the opinion in question isn't about "relying on one thing" as you now claim it to be. You said something completely different than that, and now I can't stop laughing at how you're backtracking and trying to act like everyone ELSE is the idiot. :yep:

You'd do a lot better keeping your comments about who's "not a man", who's not smart, blah-blah this and blah-blah that to yourself ... because those comments are ironic, considering the source.

Oh, and younger viewers - don't do whatever the hell you want. Listen to what safety professionals say, and not some internet troll's bogus 90% statistics.

[Stealhead]

Ah thank you for making me laugh during my lunch break "dude". I see that you are still making your own view of something very sound. Which is that you should be able to defend yourself just with your hands because you will not always be in control and there are times where you will not be able to get to your gun or your gun may fail it happens saw it with my own eyes in Iraq the soliders M-4 failed fataly no longer able to fire at all and you better belive the solider kept it in good shape murhpys law he went to his m-9 but had he been close range or not had a the M-9 then he must either use rifle but and blade or hand to hand. And you mindless fool if you are saying if someone comes into my house my dog being there is 100% legit.


And to all younger viewers just because Aramike is old means nothing besides the fact that he must be bored and a has nothing better to do but keep making me(and everyone else) laugh.
If you fail to see it as a good idea to able to defend yourself from a gun when you dont have one at hand suit yourself and die having no means at least to attempt to defend yourself.And stop making up situations where you are in control if someone is coming to attack your you wont be in control.

This is not a grammar class or anyhting being graded so I dont really care about grammar mistakes or spelling."Buddy" I was not aware my last name was Holly.And i long since stated that the not much of a man statement was used to add a bit of scarcasim I just did not expect so many to get thier cheerios pissed in.Yet you are still running with that for some reason i assume to make me laugh which I am as are my co-workers and boss.You will make the week go by fast if you keep it up.



Break it down know it all Aramike thank the good lord you are around for me now I dont know how I lived to be 33 I really could have used you when I was Iraq for that one year tour.
Come on! Break it down Break it down Break it down for me!

[Aramike]

Ah thank you for making me laugh during my lunch break "dude". I see that you are still making your own view of something very sound. Which uis that you should be able to defend yourself just with your hands because you will not always be in control and there are times where you will not be able to get to your gun. And you mindless fool if you are saying if someone comes into my house my dog being there is 100% legit.


And to all younger views just because Aramike is old means nothing besides the fact that he must be bored and a has nothing better to do but keep making me(and everyone else) laugh.A: I'm not old.

B: Your "mindless fool..." ..."dog being there is 100% legit" comment makes no sense.

C: I can handle myself very well with my hands, thank you. I'm just not stupid enough to think that it's a good idea to do so against a gun.

D: Glad you're laughing too. That makes me feel like I'm laughing with you and not at you. :doh:

[Stealhead]

Ok so in a situation where you have nothing and someone has a gun aimed at your head and they are within arms reach and they appear that they are about to fire the weapon you are going to simply let the person shot you? I will give you the benafit of the doubt here as you seem still to fail to see what I said which was you should be able to defend yourself in ANY situation.(ANY meaning one in which you have NOTHING no gun and the attacker has something)

Yep I am laughing at you. You can type what ever you want.
"Dude" this is so funny.

You broke it down broke it down now for us are you a former member of Grand Funk Railroad or something?You seem to love to break it down.

Though if you really broke it down you would see what I am saying about self defence.I hope for your sake that the day never comes when you have no weapons and someone cames at you with a gun and sticks it in your face. If it where to happen youd think wow Stealhead was right I have no gun to counter this mans gun. This is the fight that you recived no invatation to and it will be for your life.Let that simmer for a bit.dont forget you have NOTHING the attacker has a gun.;)

Keep on truckin "dude" I eagrely await your rambeling.

[Aramike]

Stealhead, I think I'm done with you "dude". For one, I can barely understand the incomprehensible way you write, which leads me to think that you're probably 15 years old or less. For two, you keep changing the argument then getting pissed that you STILL aren't making any sense.

By the way, the EXPERTS say that, if you do not have a gun and an assailant is armed, you should do what that person says.

You're clearly a little bit, umm, slow, so I'll let you have the last rambling, incoherent word.

Oh, and by the way, saying that you're laughing in EVERY SINGLE POST only insults yourself. :haha:

PS: Learn to read. I've stated that I know how to handle myself with my hands. That's not the issue.

[roman2440]

And another thread bites the dust - soooo off topic its not funny.

1) It doesn't matter which side of the 'Guns for Defense of the home' arguement - you can argue till your blue in the face it isn't going to change anybody's mind

2) If you are going to argue over the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, its should be argued from the proper point, that being as an ultimate check and balance against the state - not for personal home invasion defense.

3) None of the above 2 points have anything to do with the original issue in this thread - The abridgement of due process in executing a search. They (ATF) could be looking for contriband cookie dough for all that matters. Unfortunately since it happened to be firearms some people like to take the train off the tracks.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

And another thread bites the dust - soooo off topic its not funny.

1) It doesn't matter which side of the 'Guns for Defense of the home' arguement - you can argue till your blue in the face it isn't going to change anybody's mind

2) If you are going to argue over the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, its should be argued from the proper point, that being as an ultimate check and balance against the state - not for personal home invasion defense.

3) None of the above 2 points have anything to do with the original issue in this thread - The abridgement of due process in executing a search. They (ATF) could be looking for contriband cookie dough for all that matters. Unfortunately since it happened to be firearms some people like to take the train off the tracks.


^^^ This man is Yoda

[Aramike]

And another thread bites the dust - soooo off topic its not funny.

1) It doesn't matter which side of the 'Guns for Defense of the home' arguement - you can argue till your blue in the face it isn't going to change anybody's mind

2) If you are going to argue over the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, its should be argued from the proper point, that being as an ultimate check and balance against the state - not for personal home invasion defense.

3) None of the above 2 points have anything to do with the original issue in this thread - The abridgement of due process in executing a search. They (ATF) could be looking for contriband cookie dough for all that matters. Unfortunately since it happened to be firearms some people like to take the train off the tracks.Actually, the only point that seems to be left is the absurdity of this statement: "I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man."

[Buddahaid]

wow... some classes i have taken, the instructor will make you take the firearm apart, piece it back together, and function check it.

you also learn not to point the firearm at anything you dont intend to kill.

you learn how to deal with threats with loud booming aggressive shouting

"STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!!! , GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!!!"

(you know... loud and in your face like you see on that show "cops")

its quite fun really.

in the end you have to empty the entire magazine into a standard 8.5x11 piece of computer paper and only one round can miss... this is accomplished from a distance of about 3 - 5 feet depending on the firearm used. this helps determine your threshold - a sort of comfort zone which- once penetrated the attacker has a greater chance of disarming you by hand.

the trick is - the only time the attacker should be inside this zone is if he falls into it... dead.


That is a class you took, but did you have to in order to buy?

Buddahaid

I see your in The Lone Star State, so here's a link to Uncle Bob's gun business.
http://www.bobjonesguns.com/

[GoldenRivet]

some concealed handgun classes are like this. i have never seen a regular gun safety or hunter safety course go NEARLY that in depth.

very easy those are.

it depends a lot on the teacher, where you take the class, and what the educators past experience is. (military, police etc)

cool link!

[Buddahaid]

Thanks. The question I had though, was do you HAVE, not should, take safety courses to buy a gun? As for legal concealed, here you need to apply for a concealed weapons permit to the local Sheriff's Dept., and I don't really know what's required.

Buddahaid

[August]

Thanks. The question I had though, was do you HAVE, not should, take safety courses to buy a gun? As for legal concealed, here you need to apply for a concealed weapons permit to the local Sheriff's Dept., and I don't really know what's required.

Buddahaid

50 states 50 different sets of laws and regulations.

[SmithN23]

Thanks. The question I had though, was do you HAVE, not should, take safety courses to buy a gun? As for legal concealed, here you need to apply for a concealed weapons permit to the local Sheriff's Dept., and I don't really know what's required.

Buddahaid

There are a bunch of websites out there with all kinds of useful information. Here are a few: http://www.carryconcealed.net/, http://handgunlaw.us/, http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

[Buddahaid]

OK. :haha: I'm not really trying to find any info about applying for a concealed permit, as I'm not interested in one. I wanted to know from GR, if the training he speaks of was required for him to buy. I doubt it could be harder to buy a gun in Texas than in California, but that is what he seems to imply.

Anyway, I'll drop the subject as it's spiraling farther out from my intention.

Buddahaid

[Sailor Steve]

I think the rights you lose/gain back for being a felon depend on state some states they take your right to vote for life others once you have done your time you get it back. I suppose they may do the same in some states when it comes to firearms. But really some seem to think that you some how cant defend yourself by other means not all bad people use guns you can f..... someone up with your bare hands if you need to even if they have a weapon look up some of the military martial arts out there now.(I feel any man who cant defend himself just with his hands is a sad excuse for a man) you should be able to defend yourself without a gun. In fact I think personaly many people get a false feeling of securtiy from owning a gun.
I'm nearly 60 years old, and some days I have trouble walking, let alone fighting. My dad is 81. Is he a sad excuse for a man? What about a woman living alone? I have a friend who is just about as dangerous as they come. He keeps guns anyway. As he puts it, "It's not my job to show how tough I am. Anybody can lose a fight. Where life and death are on the line it's my job to protect my family. Any advantage is welcome."

As for a false sense of security, yes, some people think a gun is a magic wand - if you wave it the bad guy will go away. It only works if you really mean it. People with intent to do you harm will see in your eyes whether you intend to actually use it or not. Nothing is perfect, but every little bit helps.

On the other hand, do you think your self-proclaimed fighting skills give you a false sense of security?

[GoldenRivet]

Thanks. The question I had though, was do you HAVE, not should, take safety courses to buy a gun? As for legal concealed, here you need to apply for a concealed weapons permit to the local Sheriff's Dept., and I don't really know what's required.

Buddahaid

ohhhh sorry misread.

well, to have a concealed handgun permit you have to take a concealed handgun class and become certified.

to obtain a hunting license, you have to take a hunter safety course.

i dont think you have to do anything to purchase a firearm

[GoldenRivet]

What about a woman living alone?

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs096.snc1/5162_94955952276_660192276_1845352_3219383_n.jpg

[TheSatyr]

The Second Amendment should have been repealed the moment the USA decided to have a standing Army.

The ONLY reason the Second Amendment exists is because before there was a standing army,the USA was defended by organized Militias (Such as the so called minutemen).

The Second Amendment only applied to members of well regulated militias. It never had anything to do with every one owning a gun.

I suppose they could claim that being a member of the NRA makes them a member of a "well regulated militia" but the NRA doesn't seem all that well regulated to me.

Personally,I don't care how many guns you own...as long as they are muzzle loaded muskets.

Fiinally,I have 2 cousins who are cops. One in Oakland and one in Boston. Both have been shot at at one time or another and both of them wish there were stricter gun controls. I have a third cousin who also used to be a cop in Boston but he quit the force. The stress of not knowing if "today is the day I'm going to get shot and killed" became too much for him and he couldn't handle the job any more. All 3 of these cousins were MPs in the first Iraq war...and frankly they felt safer in the Middle East than they do on the streets.

And no I'm not a Liberal. I'm a Conservative Republican who happens to think the USA is too gun happy.

[Max2147]

The Second Amendment should have been repealed the moment the USA decided to have a standing Army.

The ONLY reason the Second Amendment exists is because before there was a standing army,the USA was defended by organized Militias (Such as the so called minutemen).

The Second Amendment only applied to members of well regulated militias. It never had anything to do with every one owning a gun.

I suppose they could claim that being a member of the NRA makes them a member of a "well regulated militia" but the NRA doesn't seem all that well regulated to me.

Personally,I don't care how many guns you own...as long as they are muzzle loaded muskets.

Fiinally,I have 2 cousins who are cops. One in Oakland and one in Boston. Both have been shot at at one time or another and both of them wish there were stricter gun controls. I have a third cousin who also used to be a cop in Boston but he quit the force. The stress of not knowing if "today is the day I'm going to get shot and killed" became too much for him and he couldn't handle the job any more. All 3 of these cousins were MPs in the first Iraq war...and frankly they felt safer in the Middle East than they do on the streets.

And no I'm not a Liberal. I'm a Conservative Republican who happens to think the USA is too gun happy.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but that point of view isn't terribly popular here to say the least!

So....

*Grabs comfy recliner*

*Grabs the popcorn out of the microwave*

*Sits back, relaxes, and gets ready for the show*

This should be a fun one. Have at it boys!

(I think I explained my own point of view pretty well a page or two ago, so I'm just going to sit back and watch this one).

[UnderseaLcpl]

*Sits back, relaxes, and gets ready for the show*
Then I'll do my best to give you a show, Max:DL

The Second Amendment should have been repealed the moment the USA decided to have a standing Army.

The ONLY reason the Second Amendment exists is because before there was a standing army,the USA was defended by organized Militias (Such as the so called minutemen).

The Second Amendment only applied to members of well regulated militias. It never had anything to do with every one owning a gun.

That's a common anti-gun argument, and it is not without merit. The Amendment does mention a well-regulated militia, and militias were the primary means of defense at the time, as you said.
However, you're ignoring the rest of the 2nd Amendment as well as the premise of the Constitution as a whole.
The Amendment reads; "A well-regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "
It doesn't say anything about only having militias own weapons or anything like that, it just makes the observation that a well-regulated militia is needed for the security of a free state, and then prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
As we have both stated, militias were the primary form of defense at the time. Rememeber that when the 2nd Amendment was written, you needed a block of troops delivering a volley of shot to be combat-effective. Firearms of the period were woefully inaccurate. As such, it stands to reason that the purpose of the militia clause was actually intended to be an additional protection of the right to bear arms, ensuring that people could organize militias to resist the state, in spirit if not in letter.
This is especially true when one considers the nature of the rest of the constitution. There is not a single passage of the constitution that gives rights to anyone. The entire document is nothing but a series of limitations on the state. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be a black sheep that mercifully grants us the right to serve in the military? Get your head on straight.

I suppose they could claim that being a member of the NRA makes them a member of a "well regulated militia" but the NRA doesn't seem all that well regulated to me.
Again, the well-regulated militia clause is not a stipulated requirement for the constitutional right to bear arms. As for the NRA, they understand the nature of the constitution and do not seek to regulate firearms owners, only to provide a political voice for them and provide training resources.

Personally,I don't care how many guns you own...as long as they are muzzle loaded muskets. Personally, I'll use an automatic weapon on anyone who tries to enforce that.

Finally,I have 2 cousins who are cops. One in Oakland and one in Boston. Both have been shot at at one time or another and both of them wish there were stricter gun controls. I have a third cousin who also used to be a cop in Boston but he quit the force. The stress of not knowing if "today is the day I'm going to get shot and killed" became too much for him and he couldn't handle the job any more. All 3 of these cousins were MPs in the first Iraq war...and frankly they felt safer in the Middle East than they do on the streets.
They have my thanks for their service and bravery, but I do not condone their bitching. The whole point of being a civil servant is to take risks and perform labors on behalf of your countrymen, not to infringe upon their rights to make yourself feel safer. That is what makes it a noble pursuit.
If they thought MP duty was bad, I'd be happy to drive them through the streets of Al-Karma, where they can look forward to being immolated by a concealed incendiary device along with their critical cargo of mail. It's a fun experience.
Armed civil service is to knowingly and willingly face death or any other harms on a daily basis for people you do not know but are charged to protect. If they are more concerned with their personal welfare than the mission, they should seek another profession.


If you don't like the right to bear arms, you are more than welcome to try to change it through the proper amendment process. Just don't try to slide around the constitution like so many gun-control laws do, exploiting the Interstate Commerce clause and the like.
In case you haven't guessed, that would be a futile effort. There are enough people who know what the 2nd amendment is for to block any such attempt(thanks to the strict amendment process), and even if a ban or strict regulation of firearms were to be passed by some other means, we would respond with violent force.
That's the whole purpose of the amendment; to give the people power that cannot be simply taken away by the state, and thus to give the people a means to keep the state in check, no matter what happens.

What you fail to realize is that this nation is based upon the idea of preserving freedom for every individual, not just the majority. That is why people like you cannot amend the constitution to suit your own purposes and ideals. We have a right to bear arms for the sole purpose of protecting us from people who would take our rights away by force, be it the state who does so, or another individual.

[ETR3(SS)]

First let me say that my questions are motivated purely by a curiosity to understand your point of view.

Personally,I don't care how many guns you own...as long as they are muzzle loaded muskets.

Why a muzzle loader? What makes that ok to own compared to the rest of the guns out there?

And no I'm not a Liberal. I'm a Conservative Republican who happens to think the USA is too gun happy.

And you are entitled to that opinion. No one's putting a gun to the heads of US citizens and making them buy guns. It's your right to exercise if you want to. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one!

[Aramike]

Finally,I have 2 cousins who are cops. One in Oakland and one in Boston. Both have been shot at at one time or another and both of them wish there were stricter gun controls. Serious question: do you think that someone who would shoot a cop really cares about gun laws?

[Buddahaid]

Ack! The cops being outgunned and threatened have a serious problem, and it's no wonder they may wish for better controls. With the exception of the gun shows, buying a gun requires a background check and ten day waiting period effectively keeping guns from being sold to felons, or someone freshly pissed off. It's inconvenient, but not a great infringement.

Gun shows pose a loophole to that system with instant sales, or otherwise circumnavigating a local jurisdiction. The only way I can see to bring the two into a harmony, would involve the seller shipping the gun to the buyers local gun store and having them satisfy the rule of law. This creates many problems and is why it's not popular with sellers and buyers.

I would however, like to see the NRA offer some positive suggestions to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, instead of circling the wagons. It does seem in their best interest to help solve the worst offenses.

Buddahaid

[August]

Ack! The cops being outgunned and threatened have a serious problem, and it's no wonder they may wish for better controls. With the exception of the gun shows, buying a gun requires a background check and ten day waiting period effectively keeping guns from being sold to felons, or someone freshly pissed off. It's inconvenient, but not a great infringement.

Gun shows pose a loophole to that system with instant sales, or otherwise circumnavigating a local jurisdiction. The only way I can see to bring the two into a harmony, would involve the seller shipping the gun to the buyers local gun store and having them satisfy the rule of law. This creates many problems and is why it's not popular with sellers and buyers.

I would however, like to see the NRA offer some positive suggestions to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, instead of circling the wagons. It does seem in their best interest to help solve the worst offenses.

Buddahaid

Actually the NRA has done a lot of suggesting over the years. Instant background checks and advocating increased penalties for crimes committed with a gun come to mind.

The bottom line here is the only people who are affected by gun control laws are those who are law abiding enough to comply with them. Someone contemplating murder or robbery is not going to care whether the gun they use is registered or not.

And about waiting periods. Yeah they do keep the, as you put it, "freshly pissed off" from being able to buy a gun right away, but they also keep their potential victims from being able to buy a firearm to defend themselves against a likely threat too.

[Buddahaid]

How does instant background checks work? Your words were 50 states, 50 sets of rules. People from CA go to Nevada to buy high capacity magazines outlawed in CA, and gangbangers go to there to buy what they can as well. Seems a national registry would be needed and one set of national laws. Comes back to states rights, so who fights it?

Buddahaid

Oh wait, Montana would be one! They want no federal oversight.

[August]

How does instant background checks work? Your words were 50 states, 50 sets of rules. People from CA go to Nevada to buy high capacity magazines outlawed in CA, and gangbangers go to there to buy what they can as well. Seems a national registry would be needed and one set of national laws. Comes back to states rights, so who fights it?

Buddahaid

Oh wait, Montana would be one! They want no federal oversight.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm