Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Envy89 wrote:Guns have the ability to send a bullet flying out.

A hammer has the ability to crush someone’s skull.

Both are dangerous in the wrong hands.

Yep. But a hammer is considerably less dangerous as it takes more effort on the part of the owner to use it.

To take this another route. Would you say that you had the right to bear arms if we let you throw rocks? No? Then rocks and guns aren't comparable, and neither are hammer and guns.
.

I think that you're talking about very different things. The relative effectiveness of different weapons is irrelevant to me. The bottom line is that it is an issue of trust between the government and the governed. A contract if you will.

Envy89 wrote:
If you look into it, the weapon of choice amongst the Nob biker gang know as the "Hells Angels" is a ball peen hammer. Why??? Because it is perfectly legal for ANYONE to carry it. If your a convicted felon you can’t carry a gun (well, you can. but if your caught with it your neck deep in ork sh ) but you can carry a hammer.

I agree that generally it is absurd to use nukes etc as an example.

....But.... beyond the wealth of all private citizens ? That I would say isn't true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a nuclear capable Bill gates/Ted Turner/Murdoch/Trump/bogeyman of your choice would be a good thing.

I'd also agree that many of the laws seem quite odd in where they draw the line and there is no doubt room for refinement. But all laws are a bit odd-- you can't drink when you are 20 years 364 days old but can the very next day, you are over the alcohol limit at X amount etc etc.

Not that I want to defend poorly thought out and implemented legislation, but you're not claiming that as something might be awkward to define or not please everyone it shouldn't be done or attempted are you ?

reds8n wrote:I agree that generally it is absurd to use nukes etc as an example.

....But.... beyond the wealth of all private citizens ? That I would say isn't true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a nuclear capable Bill gates/Ted Turner/Murdoch/Trump/bogeyman of your choice would be a good thing.

I'd also agree that many of the laws seem quite odd in where they draw the line and there is no doubt room for refinement. But all laws are a bit odd-- you can't drink when you are 20 years 364 days old but can the very next day, you are over the alcohol limit at X amount etc etc.

Not that I want to defend poorly thought out and implemented legislation, but you're not claiming that as something might be awkward to define or not please everyone it shouldn't be done or attempted are you ?

No, not exactly. Sure, what makes 18 the magic number for the line between adulthood and childhood? Nothing, it is arbitrary, but clearly children should not be expected to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, most people would agree with that I think. Obviously we wouldn't want to please criminals with our gun laws, no? I think we have these reasonable laws in place already though. In the US you have to be 21 to own a pistol, 18 for a long arm. Felons cannot purchase guns ( though I personally think that the individual nature of a persons crimes should be taken into account, and there should be a 10 year forgivness, but I dont make the laws). I don't think that laws restricting types or classes of weapons are right.

I think there is definitely something to be said about enforcement of existing laws, but i do think there are cases where you could go further.

Take the guy here for example. Would you not say that there would be a case for him losing his gun ownership privileges -- even if only for X amount of time and/or until he passed some form of competency test-- as he has proven by his actions that he clearly doesn't know how to handle guns safely.

BTW " 18 for a long arm."--- this mean rifle I assume ?

Yes long guns refers to rifles, carbines, shotguns, and TOW missile systems...

Edit: agreed, stupid people shouldn't 1) breed; 2) be allowed the use of firearms, chainsaws, or internal combustion engines-unless recorded on reality TV.

I can kind of see the age limit on hand guns. It is much easier to hide one to rob a store with.

But still. The idea that at 18 you can buy a 50 cal military grade sniper rifle (Funds permitting), but not a .22 single shot boot pistol is funny

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Any pussy can pull a trigger

Really? I had no idea... the things human anatomy can do is just amazing. Can you see that at a Vegas show or is it the kind of thing you have to Bangkok for?

Grignard wrote:Not getting that one.

Another thing I'd like to address that hasn't been tackled yet is that an argument has been made for gun control by using an absurd example to make a point...namely, using an extremely powerful and indiscriminate weapon as an example to illustrate the point that the government has to exercise control over individuals to protect the colletive. A good example is someone who says, " Well, you wouldn't want individuals owning, say, tactical nuclear warheads, would you? Therefore I say that you have to have *some* regulation of private ownership of arms." The obvious problem with this is that it is completely unnecessary to make any regulations of that sort at all? The sort of weapons used to illustrate that point, such as MBTs and nuclear warheads, are far beyond the resources of any private citizen to acquire and maintain. Therefore, I say, what is the point in a law that says I can't own a supersonic fighter-bomber or what not?

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

I bring this up because you can't simultaneously claim that using the 2nd amendment as a means of holding the government in check is silly and then a few minutes later use extremely powerful weapon systems as examples of why the government should regulate private ownership of weapons. If you need to regulate weapons of that sort, then obviously weapons ownership is indeed a threat to the government. If you claim that armed citizens are impotent against an army equipped with modern weapon systems, then you can't really use multimillion dollar weapon systems as examples. You can't have it both ways.

You've got the argument around the wrong way. You can't maintain that guns are needed to defend against government, and that large scale weapons are beyond the reach of the general population.

Not that the guns to keep government in line argument works in the slightest anyway. It relies on this comic book idea of a government 'turning evil', when truth is tyranical governments maintain the support of the majority of the population. Even if such a rebellion occurs, organisation and secrecy are far harder to achieve than accessing small arms.

Guns simply have nothing to do with maintaining decent government.

Another gripe I have is that these laws don't seem to be consistent, and they also seem to be made by people who know very little about guns. A good example is that for a long time, magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds were banned. Actually, you could possess them or purchase them for that matter, as long as they were manufactured prior to the passage of this law. In other words, the law didn't do anything at all but artificially limit the supply, therefore the cost, of these "hi-cap" magazines. So I have to be wealthy to have 18 rounds in my glock, and if I'm not the government only trusts me with 10 at a time???

The gun laws you have are the result of bizarre compromise between hardened anti-gun and hardened pro-gun people. They make no sense. If both sides could come to the table and look towards addressing the issue in a real, substantive way, you'd get laws that are less intrusive and more effective. That doesn't seem likely though, everyone is so extreme.

The difference between the ages for pistols and rifles, is that related to the wait for pistols/handguns --cooling off period or something was/is it ?-- and the "fact" that you can walk out with a rifle straight away ?

assuming that is still/was ever the case anyway.

hear in IL.

when you turn 18 you can buy rifels, shotguns, carbines ect ect... basicaly everything but pistols.

when your 21 you can go buy a pistol.

i know for the long guns you walk in, put some money down on it. they do a back ground check and you can come in and pick it up 24 hours later.

i think for handguns there is a 3 day wait.

reds8n wrote:The difference between the ages for pistols and rifles, is that related to the wait for pistols/handguns --cooling off period or something was/is it ?-- and the "fact" that you can walk out with a rifle straight away ?

assuming that is still/was ever the case anyway.

In both Tennessee and Colorado ( states where I have purchased guns ) there is no waiting period. If they make a call to whomever in that particular state is responsible for this sort of thing, and you come back clean, you pay your money and you walk out with the gun, long or handgun. It is no different than purchasing a plasma TV or miniatures or whatever, except with weapons it is reasonable to want to check if you're on the up and up, so to speak. If I'm not breaking the law, then there shouldn't be a wait for something I have a right to have.

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:Not getting that one.

Another thing I'd like to address that hasn't been tackled yet is that an argument has been made for gun control by using an absurd example to make a point...namely, using an extremely powerful and indiscriminate weapon as an example to illustrate the point that the government has to exercise control over individuals to protect the colletive. A good example is someone who says, " Well, you wouldn't want individuals owning, say, tactical nuclear warheads, would you? Therefore I say that you have to have *some* regulation of private ownership of arms." The obvious problem with this is that it is completely unnecessary to make any regulations of that sort at all? The sort of weapons used to illustrate that point, such as MBTs and nuclear warheads, are far beyond the resources of any private citizen to acquire and maintain. Therefore, I say, what is the point in a law that says I can't own a supersonic fighter-bomber or what not?

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

No one had a problem educating me to make explosives then trusting me not to blow up your house. So no, not really.

You've got the argument around the wrong way. You can't maintain that guns are needed to defend against government, and that large scale weapons are beyond the reach of the general population.

Not that the guns to keep government in line argument works in the slightest anyway. It relies on this comic book idea of a government 'turning evil', when truth is tyranical governments maintain the support of the majority of the population. Even if such a rebellion occurs, organisation and secrecy are far harder to achieve than accessing small arms.

Guns simply have nothing to do with maintaining decent government.

sebster wrote:

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

actually, the "ability to demolish buildings" is already regulated. If you take the courses, have the licenses, and are generally clean, you can purchase things like dynamite from small, explosives dealers. That said, however generally speaking, taking those courses generally means that you have a job or otherwise income generating lifestyle that may require the use of such items, ie. farmers sometimes use it for stump clearing in fields, demolitions companies, for obvious reasons.

of course, there are ways around said regulations and laws.. anyone who has seen or read Fight Club will know a few ways of making decent explosives.

The point is, that by tracking the names of individuals with licenses, whether its firearms, explosives, or vehicles, tends to make some things in the law enforcement side easier when things go wrong.

(my bold)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

WHouse stops pending Bush regulations for review
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.

"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.

The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.

Midnight regulations have been heavily used by recent former presidents, including the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George H. W. Bush, and most recently, the Republican George W. Bush.

Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks and prohibiting medical facilities from receiving federal money for discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse to assist with abortions or dispense contraceptives based on religious grounds.

Federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major regulatory changes become law, so some presidents try to publish new major regulations to ensure they go into effect before the new president's inauguration on January 20.

They stopped ALL the legislation though right ?


.... and why would you need a concealed wepaon in a National Park anyway ?

1. Some of the areas encompass hundreds of square miles-you're literally by yourself. Edit: I should note Reds8n we're not talking like city parks here, but large undeveloped forested or arid areas. The Fed Gov is the largest landholder in the western US.

2. Forgetting mountain lions, bears, etc. I'd be worried about the people. I came across some "interesting" characters when I used to hike the forest/mountain area above LA. Mt. Baldy also had some interesting people on occasion.

reds8n wrote:They stopped ALL the legislation though right ?


.... and why would you need a concealed wepaon in a National Park anyway ?

I'm lukewarm on that one too, because of poaching issues. Furthermore, I wouldn't trust any handgun I could pack in and actually be light enough for backpacking to stop a bear, for instance. I believe you'd be much better off avoiding the situation or using a pepper based repellent, which you're less likely to miss with, and is also useful against people.

The problem is that the law is not consistent. It is a little odd you can get a concealed carry permit for the state in question, but you can't carry it into the park.

Thank you Mr. Frazzled, I know that-- we've seen Yogi Bear.

I can see how it might be awkward if you meet people who are a bit ...."odd. The sort of wierdo who might carry a concealed gun for example.

..But-- and correct me if I'm wrong here-- would you not be allowed to carry hunting rifles/similar anyway then ?

No. no hunting rifles. I am not a hunter, but don't think you can hunt on federal lands (freely admit I might be wrong).

I'm not concerned with bears, but would be concerned with mountain lions. They do attack people in the west and I've actually come across one (well a bear too but the bear didn't bug me-the cat could have been a problem).

Again, its the people. Lots of pot growing on federal lands and you could stumble on that. As noted I've stumbled on interesting folks in the past but won't say more on that on the intranets.

Of course, nothing gets your heart going like hearing male gators in front of you, then to the side of you, then behind you...

Hmm,
I know around here people do it all the time in the parks when camping due to the fact of hostile wildlife.

I know for myself, that I would much rather have almost any gun over pepper spray. Just for the fact that ive seen people spray into the wind and nail themselfs in the process of useing it. (not as bad as the victems, but still)

So I guess what im saying is that im FOR CCW in parks.

Off topic.....
Anyone hear any new info on the right to carry on College Grounds?

So..... in areas where you might really, really, REALLY need a gun to stave off deadly animal attacks you can't carry a gun, whereas it's perfectly fine to carry one in the town centre where you're surrounded by hundreds of witnesses and people who'd help you and armed police.



You are one $%^&*( up country you know !

Is that a poaching thing then?

Pot growing eh ? *plans "trip"*

1. Thats new. its not a poaching thing its "you don't need a gun despite the 2nd Amendment" thing.

2. You don't mess with pot fields. Its not Bob and his stoner pals. Its big business with people that will kill you.

As im sure most here have noticed, im a huge gun supporter... but this national park one has got me scratching my head as well...
however, with a few easy to follow safety tips, you can avoid hostile wildlife attacks, but even IF you do get attacked there are still several things you can do.

For instance, if you are getting mauled or imminently mauled by a bear, play dead... or if your a slow and run... run DOWN HILL!!! just, um, make sure to change your angle after several feet, as bears cannot run downhill chasing something, they end up rolling clear to the bottom

if you're in cougar country (mountain lions, not older single women here) walk in groups, wear sunglasses on the back of your head, or ur hat backwards... if in a group and you see one, stand very close to eachother and be really loud.. they dont like bigger things that sound meaner than they are

so, as you can see, with a few things learned about your environment, you can do without a gun for awhile

Again, its less about the animals, more about the people you might run across.

Is that thing true about Bears and running downhill ?

...really ?

Grignard wrote:
I think that you're talking about very different things. The relative effectiveness of different weapons is irrelevant to me. The bottom line is that it is an issue of trust between the government and the governed. A contract if you will.

Social contracts, gotta love 'em. I agree though, it is a matter of trust, which is why I'm most often disposed to leave it as a municipal issue.

Yes, I am more amenable to states regulating this - within the framework of the 2nd Amendment of course.

I'm with Frazz...

When you're in the wilderness, it's the 2-legged animals for which you *really* need a gun. The 4-legged stuff will generally leave you alone if you're at all intelligent and careful.

Frazzled wrote:Yes, I am more amenable to states regulating this - within the framework of the 2nd Amendment of course.

How would you feel about a city banning concealed carry? True, each city is bound to its state constitution, and each state constitution is bound to the Federal one, but there is surely a distinction.

ARgh. I'm of two minds Dogma
1) I'm an eminent states rights'er. If you're going to legislate anything like this ist should be at the state/local level. On that basis I'd have to be down with it.

2) At the same time, this is a US Constitutional right, not a state right. Like free speech it has to be protected from all government entities.

So as a practical matter I'd be ok with a city banning concealed carry, but not on constitutional grounds. Its a reasonable restriction and does not restrict the right to have firearms, but it does limit the bear part. I guess at the end of the day I'd be ok with that, as long as the populace is free to change their minds and the law (aka this is not decided by some court fiat).

Frazzled wrote:No. no hunting rifles. I am not a hunter, but don't think you can hunt on federal lands (freely admit I might be wrong).

I'm not concerned with bears, but would be concerned with mountain lions. They do attack people in the west and I've actually come across one (well a bear too but the bear didn't bug me-the cat could have been a problem).

Again, its the people. Lots of pot growing on federal lands and you could stumble on that. As noted I've stumbled on interesting folks in the past but won't say more on that on the intranets.

Of course, nothing gets your heart going like hearing male gators in front of you, then to the side of you, then behind you...

I hunt but I'm usually hunting on private land by permission. Where most people go to hunt is the WMA, which is a state thing. I personally am wary of the WMA because you have too many shooting irons mixed with ( And this is something to think about in regards to carrying at nat. parks) alcohol, which although you're not supposed to have on the WMA, it is invariably there. Alcohol and guns mix even less well than automobiles and alcohol.

As far as the pot, if people would decriminalize that ( I'm not saying legalize, just "look the other way") then we probably wouldn't have a problem. That is a seperate issue there though.

Unfortunately bears, who will usually want to avoid you rather than cause problems, can begin to be a problem because dumbasses feed them or leave their trash out. In the Smokies it is a real problem. Every backcountry site in the Smokies has a cable device so you can store your food off the ground. Some of the bears have learned that they can hit the mechanism and if they're lucky the food will come down. All this would merely be irritating except fed bears tend to become aggressive bears. Bottom line is garbage kills bears.

If I did carry with regard to bears I'd want nothing short of a big caliber handgun round like .454 Casul or .500 Smith. While I'm sure .44 mag has taken a lot of bears during hunting season, I'd want more close up in an emergency. I'm talking about a handgun like the Ruger Alaskan. However, I feel ( And this is opinion, I can't back this up other than experience in firing large caliber handguns) that most people couldn't reliably hit a large animal in a vital area in a situation where they're panicked with such a large handgun. I still tend to agree with Colin Fletcher in this regard and say that for most people in most situations, a chemical repelent is a better idea. I'm saying this as an NRA member, hand cannon enthusiast, and general gun nut.