United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Diamondback 2/2]

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?

I think the purpose although somewhat irrelevant, is individually dependent. Why someone would carry a firearm is probably a better question, and in most cases (outside of the criminal element) I would say it is for some form of protection, either it be from the criminal, securing property or killing snakes.

What I think is very important, probably more so than skill level or proficiency, is knowing and understanding the laws regarding use of force, which are normally state specific, and vary greatly from state to state.

 

[Marine0311]

Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?

Serious question. Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?

No and your argument is terrible. It doesn't make any sense.

I am not sure how to answer that. Owning a firearm carries more responsibility than going to church.

Edit: racing kitty said it better than me.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Unless your speach starts a riot or the church you pick puts you on a terrorist watch list.

It was my understanding that Randy Weaver attended what he and his late wife thought was a church meeting, turned out to be a skin head/KKK meeting. They left never to return, however his one visit put him on the radar and ended up resulting in some prison time, and a dead child and wife. Just saying...

 

[x SF med]

I think the purpose although somewhat irrelevant, is individually dependent. Why someone would carry a firearm is probably a better question, and in most cases (outside of the criminal element) I would say it is for some form of protection, either it be from the criminal, securing property or killing snakes.

What I think is very important, probably more so than skill level or proficiency, is knowing and understanding the laws regarding use of force, which are normally state specific, and vary greatly from state to state.

So, per your stated argument, explicitly, defense is the only reason to own a firearm. Target shooters and hunters are excluded.

 

[racing_kitty]

Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?

Serious question. Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?

I don't agree with your analogy. For starters, have you explained the concept of the First Amendment right to free speech to someone who legitimately does not understand its scope? Specifically, have you ever, without scorn or derision, explained the caveat about not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater? If a loved one or junior troop has undergone some form of soul searching in that he/she has thought about changing religions and asked you about it, have you ever reminded them to be careful and not fall prey to a cult? While my second rhetorical question is not quite in line with providing needed knowledge for the safe and responsible exercise of a guaranteed constitutional right (unless you're talking about Jonestown or comets), it is relevant to my point.

When the Constitution was written, it was taken for granted that people would know the business end of a rifle from a hole in the ground, and how to responsibly use it. Even as late as the early 1990's, high school ROTC programs had rifle teams that would actually compete in shooting competitions (my sister was on a team, and she was a damned wicked shot, too). That kind of education was provided in the home from a very early age, and without bias. For a plurality today, that is no longer the case.

While I do not believe that the ability of a person to exercise his right to keep and bear arms should be completely curtailed without adequate training in how to handle a firearm, I DO believe that an unbiased means of educating the general population about firearm safety, to include how to hit what you're aiming at, should be made readily available for firearm owners. After all, sticks and stones may break my bones, but a .45 will kill me. Not to mention that if the time should ever arise that the Second Amendment is needed to protect the other nine, I would hope that the person next to me at least has the knowledge to keep his booger hook off the bang switch, and how to acquire a sight picture to hit what he's aiming at.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

So, per your stated argument, explicitly, defense is the only reason to own a firearm. Target shooters and hunters are excluded.

Is your reading comprehension off?

The context of protection was in reference to the "carrying of a firearm" and as stated the purpose of "owning" is irrelevant.

 

[x SF med]

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm? was the specific question you answered after quoting it above. so, apparently, my reading comprehension is fine, as you went off on a tangent about defense, carry and use of force, without addressing ownership which means, by extension, you think that those are the only reasons to own a firearm. Sorry, you did address ownership, and called the reason 'irrelevant". Which could mean that you only think defense is legitimate, or crime, or any reason whatsoever... the question was toward the relevancy of ownership... maybe a statement like "any legal purpose not specifically forbidden by the moral, ethical and legal tenets of society in general" would have been more appropriate, than "irrelevant" which would include crime and mayhem.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm? was the specific question you answered after quoting it above. so, apparently, my reading comprehension is fine, as you went off on a tangent about defense, carry and use of force, without addressing ownership which means, by extension, you think that those are the only reasons to own a firearm. Sorry, you did address ownership, and called the reason 'irrelevant". Which could mean that you only think defense is legitimate, or crime, or any reason whatsoever... the question was toward the relevancy of ownership... maybe a statement like "any legal purpose not specifically forbidden by the moral, ethical and legal tenets of society in general" would have been more appropriate, than "irrelevant" which would include crime and mayhem.

Dude, what?

I am going to reverse myself on gun control, I now believe everyone except the Troll should be able to keep and bear arms, the Troll should take medication instead...

Love ya man.

 

[pardus]

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?

I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.

I originally come from a country where you must now justify why you need a military style semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
It's a slippery slope.




E.T.A. "military style"

 

[policemedic]

I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.

I originally come from a country where you must now justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
It's a slippery slope.

Wow. Any firearm ? Just for saying self-defense? WTF, mate.

 

[Brill]

I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.

I originally come from a country where you must now justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
It's a slippery slope.

Strongly agree (but they are in effect asking) and actually favor Troll's response: the purpose is because it's my right and I haven't done anything deemed by society as a "no-go".

MD's laws say that I can own the shit out of shotguns or hunting rifles BUT no Class IIIs (suppressors are ok though) and no new "black rifles". No 20 round mags either.

Why not?

Technically I can get a CCW. I can apply but must show cause WHY I need one (cuz Baltimore is fucking dangerous isn't considered a valid reason).

Why? What the hell did I do wrong? Why would PA, WV, or VA grant me a CCW but because I live in a state for work (and pay a shit ton of state, property, and sales tax), I'm unable to exercise my Constitutional rights like other states?

The Founding Fathers clearly understood and foresaw that self defense was the reason for Art 2. They understood that we may in fact need, nay, REQUIRE to defend ourselves for preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If gun ownership is such a national issue, Congress should press for a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States and enforced by the President. These bullshit laws and piecemeal Acts must stop as they are exactly what the Fathers feared. The heat is slowly being turned up on the poor frog.

Can one even buy a gun at a toy store anymore?

 

[pardus]

Wow. Any firearm ? Just for saying self-defense? WTF, mate.

You must store weapons securely and separately, from ammo and bolts to ensure you are unable to use a firearm in self defense...
Talk about self defense with a firearm and you'll be virtually considered a danger to society and treated accordingly.

I was called into the police firearms officer for an interrogation and had my license threatened, because I ordered a book from Paladin press in the USA.
They didn't even know what book I ordered. I have no idea how they knew I ordered it and I found that the scariest aspect of all.
The only reason I didn't loose my license was because I was in the Army at the time.

 

[policemedic]

Yeah I agree, generally speaking most local/state governments are more in touch with the people and when they are not the people get rid of them quickly. In Texas the larger metro areas tend to be more left-wing than the rural areas, which are more right wing. I think states should set the rules for licensing and the like, but local gov should set rules specific to their communities.

I think some places Chicago, NYC, LA take it to extreme,

Local rules are the worst way to go. It inevitably results in a confusing patchwork of laws, ordinances, regulations, and general legislative asshattery. It was precisely to fix that problem that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wisely enacted preemption laws. Only the Commonwealth can regulate firearms and ammunition. The People's Republic of Philadelphia hates this because amongst other things it required them to issue licenses to carry in accordance with state law and honor licenses issued in other counties, but that's ok. Philadelphia has a number of ordinances relating to gun control that--happily!--have been rendered unenforceable by preemption.

Preemption is a great thing for Second Amendment advocates, in my view.

 

[policemedic]

You must store weapons securely and separately, from ammo and bolts to ensure you are unable to use a firearm in self defense...
Talk about self defense with a firearm and you'll be virtually considered a danger to society and treated accordingly.

I was called into the police firearms officer for an interrogation and had my license threatened, because I ordered a book from Paladin press in the USA.
They didn't even know what book I ordered. I have no idea how they knew I ordered it and I found that the scariest aspect of all.
The only reason I didn't loose my license was because I was in the Army at the time.

Umm, wow.

 

[pardus]

Umm, wow.

Yup!

 

[SpitfireV]

I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.

I originally come from a country where you must now justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
It's a slippery slope.

No you don't, only semi autos with certain features and the rest of it isn't true either. If at your initial application you say "self defence" you probably won't get your licence but it is dependent on a lot of things too. NOTE that initial licence application has nothing to do with semi autos or not.

 

[pardus]

No you don't, only semi autos with certain features

Hmm, I'll double check that. A vs E cat...

and the rest of it isn't true either.

Bullshit, unless they changed the law since I was there.

 

[SpitfireV]

@pardus I've edited it slightly to clarify. I'm not totally interested in a discussion on NZ law (since this is a US themed thread) but I do want to clarify any points of law being the bush lawyer that I am.

 

[pardus]

If at your initial application you say "self defence" you probably won't get your licence but it is dependent on a lot of things too. NOTE that initial licence application has nothing to do with semi autos or not.

OK bush lawyer, when you go for an E cat you must give a justification of why you need it (want is no justification), if you say self defense you will be automatically disqualified. That is a fact, I was there when they were making the laws, I spoke with numerous cops about it as well as many members of pistol/shooting clubs which as you may know is a big deal to be apart of and knowing and obeying the firearms laws is a strict requirement.

 

[SpitfireV]

OK bush lawyer, when you go for an E cat you must give a justification of why you need it (want is no justification), if you say self defense you will be automatically disqualified. That is a fact, I was there when they were making the laws, I spoke with numerous cops about it as well as many members of pistol/shooting clubs which as you may know is a big deal to be apart of and knowing and obeying the firearms laws is a strict requirement.

Yes but what you said was "semi autos" and you can have semi auto non E Cats on your A Cat. We both know the laws are rubbish let's just leave it there.