[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

I clupmped too many things into one pile, sorry.

We all do that

I was under the assumption that in order to "conceal and carry", you had to get some kind of rubber stamp from some lackey that said you weren't a criminal, weren't whacked in the noggin' and had at least as much sense as a monkey that could sit thru a class for some period of hours.

Concealed carry permits in MOST places require a background check from state agencies (in my case the Colorado Bureau of Investigation), and in other states, it's a similar group.

Also, generally you need some proof of "gun safety courses"... either an NRA type safety course, or something similar is acceptable. A couple of states or jurisdictions require that you take their particular course (perhaps from the Sheriffs office or something).

Concealed carry permits in many places (not all) are a "shall issue" item if you do the above things and do not have a particular type of criminal past. If you have an outstanding conviction of certain types of felonies (in particular violent, or using weapons in a crime) or you have some kind of "domestic violence case" (which are subjective most of the time anyway) you don't get one.

Now, they want to carry it a step further and want you to have a license to even own a weapon? In and of itself, its (in my opinion) not that bad of an idea. ONLY because it MIGHT weed out another layer of nut-jobs shat shouldn't be allowed out in public, much less have a 45 strapped to their hip.

Correct, this is where the problem is.. or at least part of it. Truth is, they won't weed out nutcases. The Cho guy that attacked Virginia Tech didn't have a criminal past, and could purchase guns. However, he had a "mental issue" that was unresolved and basically ignored by the very system that wants to implement this sort of thing NOW.

In other words, there are already rules and laws IN PLACE to prevent the "nut-job" from getting guns, through legal means. Placing MORE constraints on normal citizens, people without any criminal background, those of us who've never used a weapon "in anger" as someone stated in another thread here... are the ones being targeted for this.

And that is a problem.

Of course, the criminals are always going to have guns. and we haven't done a whole heck of a lot of good in keeping them off the streets.

Which is the gist of my argument. If we already have criminals running the streets, getting weapons illegally anyway, the only thing more laws do is prevent (and make it COST more) to the average guy/girl who isn't a problem to anyone. It doesn't stop CRIMINALS from obtaining weapons.

I don't know if a license is the way to go or not, but you've got to admit, that in some cases, and I don't know how many, if some dumbass had a gun, and wasn't able to pass a test, he might not ought to have it. you gotta be smarter than the trigger, right?

I suppose what you're saying here is that someone who's as dumb as a rock and got a gun, but doesn't know how to read - really ought not have the gun, right?

Not sure that is a legitimate test - but, then again, passing a safety test is an important thing. I had to pass them over and over throughout my life, my dad taught me the first rules of guns, safety rules. My uncles reinforced those rules as I hunted with various people. I never went to a 'school' on how to operate a weapon, until I was in the military.

I made expert the first time out, and I did so because I was trained properly by people who made sure that I understood safety first, and could shoot second. (So no, I never had to read a book, or rules, I got them told to me).

On the other hand, there are gang members out there on the streets will "illegal guns" (guns that were stolen from somewhere). There's no such thing, really as an illegal gun, only using it in some manner that breaks a law. (Even machine guns in the US aren't "illegal", it's illegal to convert a weapon to one, without the right paperwork. It's not even illegal to own them, with the RIGHT PAPER WORK)

This isn't to say that it would solve the problem, and I'm still a little iffy on what "rights" would be able to be take away due to this, but I don't really see it as such a bad idea.

No, making more laws to pile on top of already-existing, bad laws won't fix the problem. Making laws to make law-abiding, average people into criminals isn't a fix either.

I'm NOT iffy on "rights". There is nothing that can be debated in the Second Amendment. It's not about joining the National Guard, it's not about "allowing you to have a gun". It says the "right" "shall NOT be infringed". Infringed means to slow it down, negate it, or change it in some manner. ANY law made to prevent us from having and carrying weapons is against the Constitution. We've let it go long enough that they've usurped those rights enough.

To allow it to any further is going against the Constitution, period.

Ok, I got it, seeing as how driving isn't a right, its a privilege thing...

There's a difference in driving and owning a gun.

ok, understand that, but then, what about registering your automobiles for use on the public highway. another privilege? you can't "not" do it, if you're going to have one, right?

You have to register your car. You have to get a drivers license. Owning a gun and carrying it (bearing it) are in the Constitution as a right. Period, it's one that can not be taken without serious backlash on the entity or entities attempting to remove that right.

Remember this too.... everyone wants to equate the two things, and certainly in some instances they can have the same effect. A car can kill, the same as a gun, and sometimes in larger numbers. But one is in the Constitution, the other is not.

I mean, try driving your vega down the local main street without registration or plates, the local gendarmes get a little cranky about that.

True.

Now, as far as the "once they are registered, they can be found and taken" thing. Umm, has that happened at all with any other registered item?

Sure it has. The "RICO" act caused a lot of people to lose cars, boats, planes and other vehicles if drugs were found in the vehicles. Sometimes even if the owner wasn't AT FAULT, they still lost their equipment and it was taken by the government, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a time when the Government confiscated all boats (yet).

On the other hand there are several incidents where the government forced registration of weapons and the subsequent removal of said weapons.

oh, like cars, planes, boats? (ok, back in WWII they did take some boats, but geez) It does seem a little alarmist. no need to apologize for being so, but, lets hope that between the nutjobs that want all guns to be gone, and the other nutjobs that want to arm themselves at the local 7-11, we can find some common ground, eh?

Like I said a few days ago, being a little "alarmist" on a subject such as this should not be considered alarmist, it should be considered NORMAL. Many people simply do not like guns, plain and simple. They believe, or feel that if there were no guns, there could be (and would not be) ANY crime to speak of.

We all know this to be a false premise upon which to base laws. Criminals will always exist. If there are weapons to be had, the bad guys will get them. The next class of weapon (I predict) will be something very similar to a "Star Trek Phaser" (only it won't vaporize people, it will be a stun weapon of some kind) and criminals will get them, even if they are banned. They will make them, build them, steal them... whatever.

My point is and always has been in regards to weapons. They are tools. Use them as they are meant to be used. For hunting, sports, protection and war. Don't use them for criminal intent and there won't be problems.

Learn to use them, if you're of a mind to do so... and for Heaven's Sake don't try to ban them because you don't like them. I don't like Fords and Toyotas... perhaps I think, they should be banned too. But, that's ridiculous isn't it?