SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

To be honest, I would favor a law that excludes everyone from possessing any firearm unless that person is in law enforcement

I will bet that all of the criminal types would abide by your law.
It would now make everyone an easy target for the criminal. They would not have to worry about being shot.

Devil5052 wrote:My natural inclination (as a former law enforcement type) is a desire to see as few firearms as possible on the street. (To be honest, I would favor a law that excludes everyone from possessing any firearm unless that person is in law enforcement or.........was a former DEA Agent with a last name that begins with.........Oh...let's say "J" )

We have very different ideas of what is reasonable or ideal. If it were possible to take all thug's guns entirely, they'd still have clubs, arrows, slings, knifes, swords and any manner of other deadly weapon. A firearm is the great equalizer between evil and good when they come into violent conflict. If all criminals could be eliminated, I'd still be against this idea because the the ultimate armed thug of history is government gone awry, and our government and others aren't going away. Government must fear the people, it must remain subservient to the people. This is ensured, in the final measure, by an armed citizenry.

Gun control laws should be about limiting criminal access to guns and creating an environment where criminals are less able to commit violent crime (with guns or by other means). However, many gun control laws and policies are ineffective. Some are actually silly. Some are actually net negatives, restricting liberty and self defense rights to varying degrees, resulting in no curtailment of crime or even contributing to an environment of increased violent criminal activity. The characteristics these bad laws all share is a false presumption that criminal gun use and possession are significantly impacted by administrative, process, and access laws manifestly designed to make gun ownership more time consuming, more expensive, more exposed to criminal and civil liabilities, etc. for those that wish to exercise their right legally and in legal ways. Criminals don't care, they aren't dissuaded at all. If anything they are emboldened by the notion of a less armed, less aware, less ready society. At their core, these laws betray a belief that guns are bad and only result in bad things, and that the people that want them should not have them and must themselves be a little bit bad too (or at least paranoid). There are people in control in many states with duped (though well meaning) voting publics supporting them that are bent on not only unreasonable, unconstitutional, ineffective curtailment of this vital civil liberty, but also making out those that oppose them to be "gun nuts" whom should be derided and browbeaten into submission. The "sick culture" of traditional gun rights and lawful use are be stamped out.

There are good, reasonable, effective gun control laws on the books and there are some more yet to be discovered and implemented, as the recent background check database expansion law demonstrates. When they come up I'll support them, but in the mean time I'm going to advocate for removing the bad laws (most specifically here in New York state, but around the country by what means I can). I believe firmly they are creating a net negative effect on public safety and were born of either faulty logic (that has been repeatedly demonstrated in many other states and cities to be unfounded) or were pushed on an unsuspecting public by those with ulterior motives. In either case, they are a totally unjustifiable restraint of individual freedom at this point.

Good night, Devil. Fare thee well, but may your desire on this point meet a great wall of opposition which will not be broken.

Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders:

Butte , Montana November 5, 2007

Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resides, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resides was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resides was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, she is still alive.

Now that is Gun Control !

the ultimate armed thug of history is government gone awry, and our government and others aren't going away. Government must fear the people, it must remain subservient to the people. This is ensured, in the final measure, by an armed citizenry.

Amen to that. That's why the 2nd amendment was written.

For those that may have missed it, I was being a little facetious when I mentioned the limitations I would favor on gun possession. That being said, I will speak to the natural tendency for law enforcement types, in general, to favor limiting access to firearms:
Most law officers, at least in this country, receive extensive training in the use, & more importantly, the non-use of firearms that cannot be duplicated in a 2 hour, afternoon class that many states require for handgun licensing. (many localities require no training at all ) We (law officers) live with guns, sleep with them & potentially face them on the streets every day, so naturally have a different attitude towards them than does the average citizen, many of whom consider them little more than another "toy" to occasionally play with.
Being able to hit a paper target & clean your weapon tends to be the main purpose of most civilian firearms training, with just a passing "mention" towards gun safety..........& it just is not enough. I would favor a much more stringent requirement for licensing that would reverse the emphasis of most firearms courses to deal with gun safety first & foremost. (practical exercises like the "shoot, don't shoot" exercises Gun Thread that most law enforcement goes through & emphasis on locking up (or hiding well) your firearms so that they will not be stolen by kids or thieves......I have a 12 gauge shotgun in my house & a 9mm handgun in my car, both easily accessible (& loaded) but hidden so well that you would have to dismantle the house or car to find them ) Getting back to license training, my thinking of this training is this: We (society) would never think of licensing anyone to drive a motor vehicle without first taking a fairly extensive driver-training course (including on the road ), & then demonstrating their driving proficiency/safety in front of a qualified officer. Why not do the same for firearms licensing?
Of course it would add some expense to obtaining a license, but so does driver training.

I'm sure everyone here will agree with all I have just said, so I'll look forward to all the agreeing responses!

Devil5052 wrote:We (society) would never think of licensing anyone to drive a motor vehicle without first taking a fairly extensive driver-training course, & then demonstrating their driving proficiency/safety in front of a qualified officer.

Bad example, the average citizen is not expected to be able to drive like Nascar driver or a professional driver. You can and do have people on the road that are very poor drivers under any circumstances whether it's because of poor physical skills or simply poor judgment.

Yes, leave the guns up to the trained professionals. Like this DEA agent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZlcbJwfP4


Or this cop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n2VLmqCXL0

Richard S. wrote:Bad example, the average citizen is not expected to be able to drive like Nascar driver or a professional driver. You can and do have people on the road that are very poor drivers under any circumstances whether it's because of poor physical skills or simply poor judgment.

It is early & I am just finishing my first cup of coffee Richard, so it was the first example I came up with .....but....I don't think it was all that bad. Driving tests are designed to prove that you have the basic skills & knowledge to safely operate a dangerous device (motor vehicle) in our crowded society. Similarly, I think some kind of practical test is warranted to demonstrate your knowledge & safety in re firearms. The extent of the training & test is debatable, but the need for it is not, imo.

[quote="gambler"]Yes, leave the guns up to the trained professionals. Like this DEA agent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZlcbJwfP4


Oh man!! I assume that was a deliberate part of the DEA Agent's presentation.... (with blanks) I sure hope so!!
(if not, I'll bet he has trouble finding other agents who'll ride with him.....I sure wouldn't!! .....seriously, he would/should have been fired the instant he got back to the office!!)

Edit: After re-watching the video, I'm convinced that it was a deliberate part of his presentation just by the lack of reaction from the teachers/school officials in the room who appear fore-warned as to what was going to happen. Otherwise, I would assume they would have immediately stopped his presentation. What a great attention grabber though!
(I'll see if I can contact some friends at DEA headquarters to see if they have ever authorized such "accidental" discharges as part of the public school presentations DEA regularly performs as a public service)

I would favor total elimanation of weapons, worldwide. That would take a supernatural power to accomplish, since mankind is prone to doing bad. Didn't the first murder occur just outside the Garden of Eden? (Iraq)

Until then, we need to protect ourselves, by any means, from those who would harm us.

gambler wrote:Or this cop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n2VLmqCXL0

This female officer should have been disarmed (& probably was) fired at the scene!

Blanks under the right circumstances can be just as dangerous as the real thing especially when i close proximity. If you put a gun to someones head with a blank and pull the trigger they are going to be either dead or have some serious trauma. FYI that really happened.

Richard S. wrote:Blanks under the right circumstances can be just as dangerous as the real thing especially when i close proximity. If you put a gun to someones head with a blank and pull the trigger they are going to be either dead or have some serious trauma. FYI that really happened

You are quite right Richard, if held in very close proximity to a target. There are very safe ones however, that seal in the gunpowder in such a way that they discharge very little out of the barrel & typically have a lighter load. (Just designed to make a loud "Bang") If you look at the video again, you will see that the agent was very careful to aim the barrel at the floor. (His apparent "injury" may have just been a little theatrics to help make his point)
I have never seen that video & am only "assuming" it was a deliberate part of his presentation. I'll try to find out & report back.

That's been circulating for a few years now, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp

[quote="Richard S."]That's been circulating for a few years now, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html

I am amazed..... & a little embarrassed! ...I have never seen that video & can't imagine that the agent was allowed to keep his job!! (he should have been fired that day!)