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

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?

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

The Second Amendment should have been repealed the moment the USA decided to have a standing Army.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

Then I'll do my best to give you a show, Max:DL

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.

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'll use an automatic weapon on anyone who tries to enforce that.

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.

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

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

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!

Serious question: do you think that someone who would shoot a cop really cares about gun laws?

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.

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.