Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie >>>I think there's really no reason why now they suddenly allow firearms into national parks when the ban was perfectly acceptable for such a long time.<<< Ya, well let's see Yogi try to steal my picnic basket now!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagethumb/%20Arm%20Bears%20Organic%20T-Shirt%20" target="_blank">http://www.northernsun.com/ima...Shirt%20</a>(1038).jpg
Originally Posted By mawnck Or better yet, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2oonyMeantThis" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2oonyMeantThis</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< For example, NEARLY everyone agrees that guns should be kept away from schools. >>> What does "kept away" mean? Does it mean gun-free campuses? What about a parent that carries a gun for personal protection (and has whatever license their state requires for such) and needs to use the driveway of the school's pick-up/drop-off zone? In addition to the campuses themselves, various attempts at "gun free zones" around schools have been enacted (such as "no guns within 1000 feet of a school"). This "common-sense" (sounding) legislation again prohibits a parent with a gun from getting anywhere near their kid's school, let alone up the driveway. And what about people that live near the school? And, how would you get around town if you had to avoid some exclusion zone around each school, even if your daily routine had nothing to do with a school? What does "school" mean? Does it included community colleges, universities, and vocational schools where most students are adults? <<< I certainly don't think that a law abiding store owner should be prevented from obtaining a weapon for security purposes >>> What about a store owner whose store is close to a school? Remember, we must "Think of the children!" <<< I'm not necessarily anti-gun, I'm certainly NOT in favor of outlawing them entirely. I think there has to be a happy medium though. >>> I don't mean to pick apart your arguments, Mr X. I just want to point out that it is a very difficult issue. Any compromise not involving a complete ban and not involving unrestricted carry is going to involve tough compromises that a great many people are not going to be happy about, and a lot of what may sound as "common sense" regulation is actually either totally impractical or overly restrictive. Personally, I have no idea what the best answer is.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't mean to pick apart your arguments, Mr X.*** Yes, you do. And that's fine. It IS a complex issue, thanks to that pesky 2nd amendment (though I note once again that the amendment says nothing about "personal protection"). Since it's unlikely to be repealed anytime soon, we're stuck with it. Here's a question, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon into a police station? I don't know the answer, I'm just curious. Although the amendment does state emphatically "the right..shall not be infringed", the fact is in many cases the right most certainly IS infringed, for example in high security zones, military installations and VIP clean zones and the like, in airports and onboard aircraft cabins; not to mention that they can take that right away if you're a felon or declared mentally unstable. I guess I'm just in favor of further infringement.
Originally Posted By Mr X The airport thing is an interesting one. Why does noone decry the lack of personal protection in a place which certainly CAN BE dangerous (law abiding citizens with guns might just have been able to prevent 9/11 from happening at all!), and yet no guns in pubic schools is an horrific infringement that must be stopped?
Originally Posted By pecos bill For whatever reason, there seems to be a large amount of campus shootings, even though they may be declared gun free zones. Sadly, that only applies to law abiding citizens, it doesnt mean crap to your typical nutcase, bent on killing as many people as possible. So it would make sense to allow legal carry in such areas, because in the event of an incident, there may be a person onsite who could at least defend themselves, and quite possibly help others.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Here's a question, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon into a police station? I don't know the answer, I'm just curious. >>> If you have a concealed carry permit from the state, yes. Courthouses are a different matter. I suppose certain big-city police HQ's that are protected like courthouses are off-limits. <<< The airport thing is an interesting one. >>> It's just like the other examples you gave about convicted felons or people with mental issues: the Supreme Court and the people in general have supported restrictions and prohibitions on private gun ownership and possession in public where there is a clear public purpose to be achieved, and the balance between the public purpose and the infringement of rights is considered reasonable. Just like the 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can pack heat on an airplane. Specifically about airplanes, the whole security screening infrastructure was put in place in the US in 1960's due to a spate of airliner hijackings (many from Florida to Cuba IIRC). As far as not being able to carry a gun in the terminal or on an airplane, the reason that gun rights people generally don't raise a stink about it is that the rule applies to everyone (except law enforcement) *and is universally enforced*. As others have pointed out, having a "gun free" school law doesn't necessarily make the campus any safer unless you actually check everyone coming onto the property for guns. Certainly, anyone nutty enough to deliberately go onto school grounds to harm a child with a gun isn't going to be deterred by one extra law. But the airport is a different matter as the "only the outlaws will have guns" saying does not apply, since everyone is universally screened before entering. And, almost everyone agrees that there is a clear public purpose to keeping guns off airplanes.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Also, I think that many proposed gun laws are designed not for a direct benefit, but only as the next step along the long path to complete prohibition. Another way to look at it is that I think many of the proposed gun restrictions that I might disagree with are of the same vein that many of the laws that come out of the far right: attempts by one group to use the force of government to impose their views on everyone else, and often when those views come from personal moral values and/or are promoted using fear tactics rather than sound public policy. I can think of bad policies that I disagree with from both the far left and the far right where the justification basically is "Will someone please think of the children!" without any regard to whether children will actually be protected (as opposed to being used as an emotional manipulation tool to further one's goals). As far as what I'd do if I were in charge, in addition to the current policy of enforcing current guns laws (including strict punishment for felon-in-possession laws), I would do the following: - Close the gun show loophole (sorry, NRA). - Pass at least some level of mandatory "safe storage" law. It's going to be very difficult to regulate away the sale or transfer of a gun from one criminal to another, since by definition neither party follows the law. But if you can prevent criminals from purchasing a gun from a private seller who unwittingly sells to a bad guy, and make it more difficult for burglars to steal guns out of private homes, then I think you'd actually be doing something to keep guns out of criminal hands by closing two of the main ways they get their hands on guns today. It's not going to solve the problem completely by any means, but it would help, and at least as I see it not really infringe on gun owners' rights much at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Those make sense to me, and I'd add mandatory class on how to use a gun, akin to a drivers license. You'd have to pass it just once, and it be the person with the license, not the gun. Like with cars, if you're going to operate something potentially deadly, you should show you know how to use it. This could eliminate a lot of needless shootings. And it's hard to see how the NRA could object (though they probably would) since they run such classes themselves, and requiring drivers licences has never resulted in the government "rounding up people's cars."
Originally Posted By Mr X Good points, guys. In particular, "safe storage" is a real concern I think. Although I'd never thought of the burglary angle before (that makes perfect sense!), only the fact that kids so often get their hands on weapons left unlocked. One thing though, IF people are using a gun for personal defense, it doesn't make much sense to have to keep it locked up (so you have to fumble around to get it in a crisis)..although when the house is empty or the gun is otherwise unattended, definitely. Dabob, I would like that very much BUT, the argument on the NRA side is that keeping and bearing arms is a right, whereas driving is not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But a). that runs afoul of the constitution itself; the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because a right isn't set down here specifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It was intentionally left open-ended this way, and has been interpreted by the courts over the years to mean we have rights (like privacy) that aren't granted specifically in black and white. This remains controversial, but has often happened; and b). rights specifically granted can nonetheless have restrictions, as demonstrated earlier (no guns on airplanes, no yelling "fire" in a theatre, etc.)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << One thing though, IF people are using a gun for personal defense, it doesn't make much sense to have to keep it locked up (so you have to fumble around to get it in a crisis)..although when the house is empty or the gun is otherwise unattended, definitely. >> From my perspective, in 99% of self-defense scenarios that I can envision in the home, a can of pepper spray will be just as a effective as a handgun if a physical deterrent must be used.
Originally Posted By pecos bill SG, are you serious? You would trust the defense of your family, against potentially armed and deadly intruders to a can of pepper spray?
Originally Posted By pecos bill I know the chances of ever having to actually use a gun in your home for self defense are miniscule, but for some, it is a comfort knowing that they have that option. Pesonally, one of my biggest motivations for having a gun in the house was listening to the 911 recordings of a lone, unarmed old woman in her home, on the line while two thugs kicked in her door and killed her. Those screams haunt me to this day.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>listening to the 911 recordings of a lone, unarmed old woman in her home, on the line while two thugs kicked in her door and killed her. Those screams haunt me to this day.<< And if she'd been a lone, armed old woman, do you think the results would've been any different? The most likely scenario is that they would've ended up killing her with her own gun. You can't base decisions on recordings that haunt you. That's emotion taking over something that reason needs to be in charge of.
