PDA

View Full Version : who should be allowed to own pistols?


j1133s
06-25-2010, 9:10 AM
I'm curious what your thoughts are as to who (in our society) should be allowed to own a pistol. Just would like to point out that pistols is a defensive weapon.

CSACANNONEER
06-25-2010, 9:14 AM
I'd just like to point out that handguns are used for many more things than just defense. They are used for many sporting purposes including Olympic competition.

So, why would you ask such a question anyways?

tommyid1
06-25-2010, 9:16 AM
playing devils advocate??? im pretty sure that the second ammendment and a combination of the various gun control acts says anyone can have a pistol barring any criminal record etc.

civilsnake
06-25-2010, 9:16 AM
Everyone. Next question.

Malthusian
06-25-2010, 9:17 AM
Any law abiding citizen in any State should be allowed to "Bear Arms", Either open carry ( loaded ) or concealed. Concealed being the most practical in a major City. A reasonable amount of training should be required to CCW.

punisheryayarea
06-25-2010, 9:19 AM
ANY USA CITIZEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

j1133s
06-25-2010, 9:23 AM
Everyone. Next question.

civilsnake, thanks for voting everybody. I wanted to vote that but picked other instead.

civilsnake
06-25-2010, 9:24 AM
civilsnake, thanks for voting everybody. I wanted to vote that but picked other instead.

LOL, it's your poll!

j1133s
06-25-2010, 9:24 AM
playing devils advocate??? im pretty sure that the second ammendment and a combination of the various gun control acts says anyone can have a pistol barring any criminal record etc.

2A doesn't matter. In your ideal world, what'd you like wrt to pisotl wonership?

ap3572001
06-25-2010, 9:25 AM
Any law abiding citizen in any State should be allowed to "Bear Arms", Either open carry ( loaded ) or concealed. Concealed being the most practical in a major City. A reasonable amount of training should be required to CCW.


A County Sheriff ( or any agency that issues a CCW permit) can and SHOULD have regulations. ( Qualification, a list of handguns/calibers that You may carry ETC) .

Just like most departments regulate their officers.

j1133s
06-25-2010, 9:26 AM
LOL, it's your poll!

:) I sucks that I don't know how to correct that mistake too.

j1133s
06-25-2010, 9:27 AM
I'd just like to point out that handguns are used for many more things than just defense. They are used for many sporting purposes including Olympic competition.

So, why would you ask such a question anyways?

I'm curious.

I'm also curious about this:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=315417

Corbin Dallas
06-25-2010, 9:30 AM
Any US Citizen or legal immigrant who does NOT have a criminal record or history of violent outbreaks.

Just like I think DUI convictions that reach #2 should automatically exclude them from driving until they can prove they are responsible enough to drive again.


I know there are a LOT of people who think everyone should be able to own guns...

Do these same people include murderers who plead down to manslaughter, child molesters, serial rapists, wife/husband abusers, gang members and many many others?

winnre
06-25-2010, 9:45 AM
You have 538 posts and you can't do better than this?

Rekrab
06-25-2010, 9:50 AM
Any citizen without a violent felony record, immigrants with green cards, resident aliens, work visa holders, student visa holders, etc...

civilsnake
06-25-2010, 10:05 AM
I know there are a LOT of people who think everyone should be able to own guns...

Do these same people include murderers who plead down to manslaughter, child molesters, serial rapists, wife/husband abusers, gang members and many many others?

Yes.

Vacaville
06-25-2010, 10:06 AM
Everyone who hasn't shown that they can't be trusted with one.

NorCalDustin
06-25-2010, 10:06 AM
US citizens (and legals) w/o gun crime conviction, BUT I think that a very strict safety proficiency test should be required.

bigbob76
06-25-2010, 10:12 AM
I'd just like to point out that handguns are used for many more things than just defense. They are used for many sporting purposes including Olympic competition.

So, why would you ask such a question anyways?

I recently realized I had made an incorrect assumption. I had assumed that firearms enthusiasts would be interested in preserving our freedoms. I look at the Legislative Report at the beginning of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and from the letter in parentheses I see in front of every state legislator that is proposing attacks on our firearms freedoms is always the same. Without mentioning which letter it is the painful reality is that many calgunners vote this persuasion.

j1133s
06-25-2010, 11:36 AM
...
I know there are a LOT of people who think everyone should be able to own guns...

Do these same people include murderers who plead down to manslaughter, child molesters, serial rapists, wife/husband abusers, gang members and many many others?

Yes.
I voted "other" by mistake, I wanted to vote "everybody".

Corbin Dallas
06-25-2010, 11:52 AM
sorry guys, I cannot agree with letting violent criminals have guns.

Let them have knives, bats, other items, but let those in this country who have NOT committed a crime such as this have the guns.

What's next? Are you ok with letting convicted sex offenders babysit your kids? Rapists to clean your house while your wife takes a shower?

Maybe we should let convicts VOTE and run for political office too...

Or maybe you could get MS13 members to come landscape your yard, install your alarm system or clean your guns for you.


Why do I need a gun and the violent person does not?

Because I'm not a 300lb linebacker who can squat a small car...

-hanko
06-25-2010, 12:12 PM
2A doesn't matter. In your ideal world, what'd you like wrt to pisotl wonership?
The 2nd Amendment is WHAT matters. I would favor keeping guns completely out of the hands of those convicted of felonies, realizing that restriction goes beyond the 2nd.

The second sentence is unintelligible.

Are you saying that pistols should only be used for self-defense??

I'm thoroughly baffled by this poll, and I've seen some really weird polls on Calguns.net.:confused:

-hanko

BillCA
06-25-2010, 12:16 PM
As tempting as it is to select "everybody", I just can't.



What I would propose is that "everybody" be allowed to buy/posses firearms except for people with any of the following disqualifiers.

Those adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
Those persons convicted of any violent felony or armed burglary.
Persons convicted of any felony embezzlement, fraud or financial theft.
Anyone required to register as a sex offender [misdemeanor or felony]
Persons who have renounced their US citizenship
Any person who has entered the country illegally.
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from US military service.
I think that covers the bases of denying firearms to those people who have demonstrated they are not capable of obeying the law.

Violent felonies include all crimes against a person - murder, rape, sexual assault, mayhem, ADW, aggrivated assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, etc. Armed burglary is added because it rises to the intent to injure others during the crime.

Finanical frauds can be more devastating than an armed robbery, especially for seniors. Persons defrauding large numbers or taking large amounts of money don't deserve firearms.

M. D. Van Norman
06-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Every free human.

wamphyri13
06-25-2010, 12:27 PM
I think any mentally stable, law-abiding citizen should be allowed. Violent criminals lose their rights. Misdemeanors don't count. Non-violent crimes shouldn't bar you for life either.
Plenty of desperate people have committed non violent crimes (theft) and have turned their lives around. Why should they be denied the right.
Tough choices on the poll, so I didn't vote. But there's my answer.
Ryan

civilsnake
06-25-2010, 12:31 PM
sorry guys, I cannot agree with letting violent criminals have guns.


Why does a violent crime suddenly mean you no longer have the same right to defend yourself as everybody else? In this country we take these rights to be natural, not granted by government.

There are just too many special circumstances, too many caveats. It's been shown that there is no way to deny these rights without affecting the innocent, and by denying natural rights we're guilty of treason in my book.

Big E
06-25-2010, 12:32 PM
I want to comment but I don't know what to say. Is there a "right" answer here? Ouch, I now have a headache.

Corbin Dallas
06-25-2010, 12:32 PM
The 2nd Amendment is WHAT matters. I would favor keeping guns completely out of the hands of those convicted of felonies, realizing that restriction goes beyond the 2nd.

The second sentence is unintelligible.

Are you saying that pistols should only be used for self-defense??

I'm thoroughly baffled by this poll, and I've seen some really weird polls on Calguns.net.:confused:

-hanko

I'm baffled that you would think the 2nd refers to target practice only.

I'm baffled that you're implying that pistols are NOT intended for self defense.

wu_dot_com
06-25-2010, 1:30 PM
Why does a violent crime suddenly mean you no longer have the same right to defend yourself as everybody else? In this country we take these rights to be natural, not granted by government.

There are just too many special circumstances, too many caveats. It's been shown that there is no way to deny these rights without affecting the innocent, and by denying natural rights we're guilty of treason in my book.

what ever happen to the innate ability to determine right from wrong. a person who was proven to have committed a violent crime should not be allow to bear arms becuase they will most likely use it on other people. just becuase everyone can buy guns does not mean that everyone will buy guns. ultimately we need to look out for the interest of society.

i think people are loosing focus here. the whole reason for gun control is to achieve crime control. i.e. less guns = less violent crime. but IMO, JC had it right
The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.

w/o criminals we wouldn't have this gun control problem.

freonr22
06-25-2010, 1:32 PM
w/o criminals we wouldn't have this gun control problem.

You are right, we would have ANOTHER gun control problem. THEY always want to take power away from "the common people" to make "their" power larger ;)

StephenhDMRS
06-25-2010, 2:25 PM
How about people that are 18+????? I think it's retarded I can buy any rifle I want but not a handgun until I'm 21... Just saying.

kimber_ss
06-25-2010, 2:39 PM
I'll go with the 2nd amendment, and then bar anyone who's convicted of a violent crime. For underage persons less than 18 years old, I would restrict to .22LR as the maximum caliber that they may own. I would require training for those underage to own anything more than a BB gun.

wu_dot_com
06-25-2010, 2:57 PM
You are right, we would have ANOTHER gun control problem. THEY always want to take power away from "the common people" to make "their" power larger ;)

got me there. big brother is always watching.

wu_dot_com
06-25-2010, 3:00 PM
I'll go with the 2nd amendment, and then bar anyone who's convicted of a violent crime. For underage persons less than 18 years old, I would restrict to .22LR as the maximum caliber that they may own. I would require training for those underage to own anything more than a BB gun.

i've seem some pretty stupid overage people handling guns. i would say its require for anyone over 18 w/ clean record to take training before they can handle their first gun.

the training would include rifle, shotgun, and handgun.

bigbob76
06-25-2010, 3:04 PM
i think people are loosing focus here. the whole reason for gun control is to achieve crime control. i.e. less guns = less violent crime.

.

I believe the data proves you wrong on this one. More guns and less crime is what the FBI data shows.

civilsnake
06-25-2010, 3:09 PM
I find it kinda funny that so many people on this board complain about LEO's lack of restrictions when it comes to purchasing, owning and carrying firearms, yet think it's fine to place restrictions on people they deem unfit to handle firearms.

luckystrike
06-25-2010, 3:11 PM
How about people that are 18+????? I think it's retarded I can buy any rifle I want but not a handgun until I'm 21... Just saying.

thats exact what set on me when I picked up my AK 4 months after my 18th B-day.

wu_dot_com
06-25-2010, 3:14 PM
I believe the data proves you wrong on this one. More guns and less crime is what the FBI data shows.

well, i never did believe in any of those gun control BS to begin with. to me, that gun control mindset makes just as much sense as PETA.

bigbob76
06-25-2010, 3:19 PM
How about people that are 18+????? I think it's retarded I can buy any rifle I want but not a handgun until I'm 21... Just saying.

What, you think our legislators give a hoot about common sense? LOL

It's like when I buy a gun and have to wait 10 days. Supposedly it's a cooling off period in case we're wanting to get the gun to go and shoot somebody we're angry at. Like we couldn't do that with the guns we already have. In free states the FFL runs you through the NCIC in a matter of minutes and if you come up clear you walk out with the gun you pay for.

BillCA
06-25-2010, 3:19 PM
Why does a violent crime suddenly mean you no longer have the same right to defend yourself as everybody else? In this country we take these rights to be natural, not granted by government.

There are just too many special circumstances, too many caveats. It's been shown that there is no way to deny these rights without affecting the innocent, and by denying natural rights we're guilty of treason in my book.

By the same token that we prohibit someone who illegally uses a computer to steal from banks to have access to a computer. Or that we prohibit a DUI driver from driving a car. Or that we require pedophiles and rapists to register their presence as a sex-offender.

I will argue that an ex-felon who obtains a firearm and uses it in lawful self-defense (or defense of another) should not be prosecuted as a "felon in possession".

The penalties and punishments for felonies are well known. Losing one's right to vote and gun-rights goes along with a felony conviction. Don't like that? Don't do the crime. Simple. But those deprived of their rights have had their due process via a trial (and appeals).

StephenhDMRS
06-25-2010, 3:24 PM
True about common sense, but my comment was the 18+ should be up on the poll :) I mean come on... I'm pretty sure 308 beats handgun. And if it doesn't, I can beat them with my rifle/bayonet :D

GearHead
06-25-2010, 3:24 PM
Any law abiding citizen in any State should be allowed to "Bear Arms", Either open carry ( loaded ) or concealed. Concealed being the most practical in a major City. A reasonable amount of training should be required to CCW.

NO training should be required to CCW. "...shall not be infringed." Period.

-hanko
06-25-2010, 3:27 PM
I'm baffled that you would think the 2nd refers to target practice only.

I'm baffled that you're implying that pistols are NOT intended for self defense.
The 2nd refers to any lawful use of the weapon, one of which is self-defense...

OP noted " Just would like to point out that pistols is a defensive weapon"...I'm pointing out (or I thought I was) that pistols can be used for much more than just a 'defensive weapon".

thanks for letting me clarify.

-hanko

PutTogether
06-25-2010, 3:28 PM
I say anyone. It is worth it to me to allow anyone to have the liberty of owning and carrying a pistol anywhere they like in order to secure myself the same liberty.

-hanko
06-25-2010, 3:33 PM
i've seem some pretty stupid overage people handling guns. i would say its require for anyone over 18 w/ clean record to take training before they can handle their first gun.

the training would include rifle, shotgun, and handgun.
The 2nd Amendment does not require training. If you can demonstrate that states that require training before someone "can handle their first gun" have a lower incidence of gun crime, I might be convinced. Anecdotally, states which require training prior to the issuance of a ccw/chl/etc. show no difference in crimes by permit holders v. those who do not require training.

-hanko

tacticalcity
06-25-2010, 3:36 PM
How about people that are 18+????? I think it's retarded I can buy any rifle I want but not a handgun until I'm 21... Just saying.

On principle I agree. The pragmatist in my has doubts. In today's day and age most 18 year olds can't wipe their rear without help. Our society shelters them from responsibility every chance it gets, then expects them to suddenly know how to be an adult at 18.

I would be a lot more inclined to trust an 18 year old member of the armed forces than an 18 year old civilian, for the simple reason that the former survived boot camp and has demonstrated some degree of responsibility and maturity.

That is not to say that I believe all 21 year olds are responsible either. However, most have at least had a few years of having to fend for themselves.

There are plenty of exceptions to both of the above. My point is, society simply does not prepare people for life's little responsibilities. I would feel a lot more comfortable with your proposal if it did.

grammaton76
06-25-2010, 4:26 PM
I voted 'US citizens and legals without a gun crime conviction'.

It was the closest to what I wanted, which is "without a violent crime conviction". If you mugged someone with a knife that's a prohibiting offense in my book.

I don't think peaceful possession of a prohibited weapon (including an MG) should be considered a prohibiting offense.

bigbob76
06-25-2010, 4:27 PM
On principle I agree. The pragmatist in my has doubts. In today's day and age most 18 year olds can't wipe their rear without help. Our society shelters them from responsibility every chance it gets, then expects them to suddenly know how to be an adult at 18.

I would be a lot more inclined to trust an 18 year old member of the armed forces than an 18 year old civilian, for the simple reason that the former survived boot camp and has demonstrated some degree of responsibility and maturity.

That is not to say that I believe all 21 year olds are responsible either. However, most have at least had a few years of having to fend for themselves.

There are plenty of exceptions to both of the above. My point is, society simply does not prepare people for life's little responsibilities. I would feel a lot more comfortable with your proposal if it did.

Thank you for condensing very good points into a digestible package!

Ultimate
06-25-2010, 5:22 PM
Everyone that isn't a convicted felon works for me. The more people we can get into this gun hobby/sport/culture the better.

Corbin Dallas
06-25-2010, 5:49 PM
The 2nd refers to any lawful use of the weapon, one of which is self-defense...

OP noted " Just would like to point out that pistols is a defensive weapon"...I'm pointing out (or I thought I was) that pistols can be used for much more than just a 'defensive weapon".

thanks for letting me clarify.

-hanko

Sorry, I must have missed that part of the OP and I agree, firearms can be used for much more than just a defensive weapon.

picasso
06-25-2010, 6:50 PM
US citizens (and legals) w/o gun crime conviction, BUT I think that a very strict safety proficiency test should be required.

There's already the HSC and the Safety Handling Demo. What else do you want?

BillCA
06-25-2010, 11:48 PM
I don't think peaceful possession of a prohibited weapon (including an MG) should be considered a prohibiting offense.
Even if that prohibited weapon is a WMD like Sarin or mustard gas?
How about a couple of Mk 84 500 pounders with fuses?
Or a five gallon jug of nitrogylcerine?

Remember, if you say "everyone" and there should be no restrictions ("infringement") of the right, you have to accomodate others with extreme positions. Heck if you want a 155mm as your lawn decoration, have at it. But I think the artillery shells for it should be well secured in a munitions bunker.

BillCA
06-25-2010, 11:53 PM
There's already the HSC and the Safety Handling Demo. What else do you want?
The HSC is, as far as I'm concerned, an unconstitutional tax on the 2A right. For thee and me, it might amortize out over a 5 year period to less than $1 per gun. But for others, it amounts to a $25 tax on the purchase of the only firearm they may ever buy.

The Safety handling demo should be SOP. If you go buy a motorcycle, most shops will give you a 30-second-gold-plated review of the controls when they deliver the bike to you. Throttle, brakes, clutch, shifter, kill-switch, etc. There's no reason that a formal test is required or a fee should be paid.

hawk81
06-26-2010, 1:32 AM
Anyone out of prison should be allowed to own handguns. If they can't be trusted with a handgun than they have no business being out of prison.

VictorFranko
06-26-2010, 4:58 AM
Other criteria:
Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens only with no felony convictions, in our country or other countries.
No ownership for resident aliens and no ownership especially for illegal aliens.
You want to own a gun in my country? Prove yourself worthy, renounce your citizenship to the motherland and take the time to become a citizen of your chosen homeland.

Malthusian
06-26-2010, 5:53 AM
Everybody including myself "add" this restriction and "that" restriction.
That's what got us in this mess to begin with.

Lets just adopt Arizona's standards, and move on.

Better off to add the "Castle Doctrine" and eliminate liability lawsuits when justifiable defense is utilized.

lazs
06-26-2010, 7:11 AM
j1133s.. I would just like to "point out" that handguns are a lot more than a "defensive weapon"

I know you will get your tactical underwear in a bunch over this but there are some of us here who have been collecting and shooting handguns for decades without much thinking about "defense"

There is hunting and target shooting and plinking and a number of things that you may not understand but.. take my word for it.. they are fun.

I don't imagine myself shooting someone every time I shoot at a rock or tin can.

I do think that getting more people into the shooting fun is more in our interest as gun owners than a morbid and narrow focus on shooting people.

I started shooting when I was nine. The gun was "mine" but in my parents care... I think anyone who is of sound mind and of legal age should be able to buy a handgun. In fact.. I believe that a bank robber who is let out of prison should be given his gun back on the way out the gate. If you can't trust him with a gun why did you let him out in the first place?

eccvets
06-26-2010, 7:37 AM
only cops need guns, you dont need one when they have them because they will protect you...

themailman
06-26-2010, 8:41 AM
Any US citizen, regardless of state residency, that is not a felon or a known drug abuser.

ilikeguns
06-26-2010, 8:54 AM
Ill go with any citizen who is not a criminal. I like the w/o gun crime conviction option. "Abuse it and lose it" works for me.
Would like to say, "any american citizen" but there's some real bad ones out there.

DiscoBayJoe
06-26-2010, 9:02 AM
Anyone who's legally in this country.

People who've commited crimes bad enough to never be trusted with a gun again should still be in Jail, Deported, Or Executed (take your pick). MAYBE a restriction while they are on parole/probation, but if they make someone free, they should be free.

If you are visiting this country legally (Vacation w/Visa or resident alien) you should be able to own/possess a gun.

If you are in this country illegally or are a fugitive from justice (escaped/bail jumper,etc) you rights (including 2A) should be restricted.

Chk Chk Boom
06-26-2010, 9:05 AM
Anyone out of prison should be allowed to own handguns. If they can't be trusted with a handgun than they have no business being out of prison.

:rolleyes:
Intentionally break the law = Lose rights

Plus, you should probably watch that documentary on how Florida lets everybody off from their sentence super early... It'll probably change your mind.

kellito
06-26-2010, 9:42 AM
Not allowing ownership to felons is part of their punishment, and it is cheap, I'm all for it.

On the other hand, they should have a right to defend themselves also. I guess I just don't value their lives like I do the innocent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

civilsnake
06-26-2010, 9:44 AM
I'm glad to see so many here are in favor of "common sense gun control" :rolleyes:

lazs
06-27-2010, 7:30 AM
For those who say that "criminals" should not have guns.. Do any of you get through the day without breaking some law or another? Do you think anyone who had a wife or girlfriend accuse him of 'abuse' should have his rights taken away? what about drunk drivers? certainly you don't want a person who would drive drunk to have a firearm?

Jaywalkers? they obviously have no respect for the law. Tax cheats? obvious anti government types.

The gun grabbers will.. and have.. taken the whole "criminals should not have guns" thing and run with it. I believe that a lot of you are unwittingly playing into their hands.

I have no illusions that telling violent gun criminals that they can no longer have guns.. I have no illusions that I will then be safe from them ever shooting anyone or even having a gun on em.

Those types of laws are like all gun control laws. They work on, and against, honest people not real bad guys.

Sunday
06-27-2010, 11:05 AM
I am a constitutional rights kinda guy. I am really offended at the people who trample the constitution, especially those who have taken an oath to protect it and do not.

Sunday
06-27-2010, 11:15 AM
i've seem some pretty stupid overage people handling guns. i would say its require for anyone over 18 w/ clean record to take training before they can handle their first gun.

the training would include rifle, shotgun, and handgun. Stupid people drive cars .

Corbin Dallas
06-27-2010, 1:50 PM
For those who say that "criminals" should not have guns.. Do any of you get through the day without breaking some law or another? Do you think anyone who had a wife or girlfriend accuse him of 'abuse' should have his rights taken away? what about drunk drivers? certainly you don't want a person who would drive drunk to have a firearm?

Jaywalkers? they obviously have no respect for the law. Tax cheats? obvious anti government types.

The gun grabbers will.. and have.. taken the whole "criminals should not have guns" thing and run with it. I believe that a lot of you are unwittingly playing into their hands.

I have no illusions that telling violent gun criminals that they can no longer have guns.. I have no illusions that I will then be safe from them ever shooting anyone or even having a gun on em.

Those types of laws are like all gun control laws. They work on, and against, honest people not real bad guys.

I don't think anyone in this forum is thinking jaywalker when they talk about "Criminals".

And, according to our "Laws", when you break a BIG one, like I dunno, MURDER, you LOSE your RIGHTS as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

So those "Rights" you speak of have been REMOVED by order of the JUDGE and JURY, not the opinions of some members of an internet chat forum.

Linh
06-27-2010, 2:34 PM
Other criteria:
Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens only with no felony convictions, in our country or other countries.
No ownership for resident aliens and no ownership especially for illegal aliens.
You want to own a gun in my country? Prove yourself worthy, renounce your citizenship to the motherland and take the time to become a citizen of your chosen homeland.

I guess you can start by collecting guns from some service members in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Or better yet let them have the guns while deployed but don't let them own a gun when they return to America.

As for the second part let's allow gun ownership for vets and LEO only?

NorCalMama
06-27-2010, 3:35 PM
Everyone who is a citizen/legal. If someone has done something that "warrants" denying them their Rights, why are they even back out into society? Should they not remain locked up if they are sooo dangerous that they shouldn't be "allowed" the Right to keep and bear arms. If you have served your time in full, it sould be just that, served IN FULL. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

Sinixstar
06-27-2010, 3:51 PM
I don't see the point behind distinguishing between pistols and long guns.

If the person is upstanding enough of a citizen to own a shotgun or a rifle (both of which are arguably far more dangerous than a handgun) - then owning handguns should be a given.

Doesn't matter if it's a .30-06, a .22, or a .44mag - it's the nut behind the trigger that makes a difference.

Notblake
06-27-2010, 3:59 PM
You guys do realize that criminals don't care about following laws right?

Laws are for law abiding citizens.

Quoting my CJ professor here with 37 years of police work, "There will never be a shortage of guns for criminals."

Parolees shoot more cops than any other group. Parolees can't legaly have guns .... doesnt seem to be working does it?

If saying that criminals cant have guns makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside I would question your grasp of reality. For me, my guns make me feel warm ad fuzzy.

Basic BGC is fine but beyond that they need to leave us adults to take care of our adult business. I'm so sick of this "I know what's best for you." government.

Sinixstar
06-27-2010, 4:01 PM
Everyone who is a citizen/legal. If someone has done something that "warrants" denying them their Rights, why are they even back out into society? Should they not remain locked up if they are sooo dangerous that they shouldn't be "allowed" the Right to keep and bear arms. If you have served your time in full, it sould be just that, served IN FULL. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

There's an argument to be made that there's two main portions to 'repaying your debt' so to speak. One is the flat out punishment of a jail sentence, the other is regaining society's trust.

That said - I think there should be a more clearly defined mechanism and process for felons to have their rights re-instated.

The "rehabilitation" process isn't just about what felons do to make up for their crimes - but also about society recognizing those who have made the effort and moving on.

Notblake
06-27-2010, 4:11 PM
There's an argument to be made that there's two main portions to 'repaying your debt' so to speak. One is the flat out punishment of a jail sentence, the other is regaining society's trust.

That said - I think there should be a more clearly defined mechanism and process for felons to have their rights re-instated.

The "rehabilitation" process isn't just about what felons do to make up for their crimes - but also about society recognizing those who have made the effort and moving on.

Do you have any experience with felons?

Do you know that over 50% of people serving time in prison (not jail) are in there for Violent crime. These are people who have demonstrated that they do not have control of their actions and cannot act responsibly in our society. The rehabilitation model of justice has proven ineffective by the recidivism rate alone.

I think you should do a ride along with a parole officer and talk about his clientèle, (seriously, Im not being sarcastic here) I did it, and it changed my whole outlook on life. These people are monsters, and I do mean monsters, their brains are not the same as ours. They take pleasure in the misery of others, by raping, murdering, robbing, or downright beating other human beings.

CenterX
06-27-2010, 4:15 PM
Looks like more than 50% would amend the constitution - limited rights! That is crap. Way to play into the hands of the socialist nitwits!

Sinixstar
06-27-2010, 4:21 PM
Do you have any experience with felons?

Do you know that over 50% of people serving time in prison (not jail) are in there for Violent crime. These are people who have demonstrated that they do not have control of their actions and cannot act responsibly in our society. The rehabilitation model of justice has proven ineffective by the recidivism rate alone.

I think you should do a ride along with a parole officer and talk about his clientèle, (seriously, Im not being sarcastic here) I did it, and it changed my whole outlook on life. These people are monsters, and I do mean monsters, their brains are not the same as ours. They take pleasure in the misery of others, by raping, murdering, robbing, or downright beating other human beings.

And if those 50% you speak of "cannot control" themselves, then they should not be able to petition to have their rights restored. Fairly simply.

Doesn't change the fact that there are those who rise to the level of being 'rehabilitated'. No reason to assume people can't pay the debt, learn their lesson, and move on...

packnrat
06-27-2010, 6:10 PM
i voted everybody...if we start chopping up who can and who can not...when do we become cannot??

but yes i have know a couple people who should not even be handling a baby's safety spoon to feed them selves.
should we also ban a mugger from having a knife? a club? a threat?.
maybe we should make it a crime to have bad thoughts???



:TFH:



.

bigbob76
06-27-2010, 6:44 PM
If saying that criminals cant have guns makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside I would question your grasp of reality. For me, my guns make me feel warm ad fuzzy.

It kind of goes with what kids are taught today in school by female teachers and, sorry, but most male teachers that aren't real heavy on masculine traits. Guns are bad and evil doesn't really exist.

j1133s
06-28-2010, 1:06 AM
Interesting that the difference in votes these 2 categories received:

"US citizens (and legals) w/o gun crime conviction"
"Everybody w/o gun crime conviction"

What's the difference between these 2 categories anyway?
Is it just legal vs illegal immigrants? Since it looks like that nobody's got any gun-rime conviction.

Anyway, I noticed some folks commenting on pistol and defensive weaponary. Sure, a pistol, being a weapon, can be used offensively. And sometimes it may be the best offensive weapon when concealment and portability are issues. But generally, I think, perhaps like short knives vs long knives, pistol is considered defensive.

Now, I'm curious about that toothpaste poll. I'd think on this manly forum nobody cares about brushing. hmm.

VictorFranko
06-28-2010, 4:01 AM
I guess you can start by collecting guns from some service members in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Or better yet let them have the guns while deployed but don't let them own a gun when they return to America.

As for the second part let's allow gun ownership for vets and LEO only?

Serving your chosen homeland certainly qualifies as proving yourself.
As a matter of fact, serving in the military (let's say four years with honorable discharge) should also include automatic offer of citizenship, IMO.
It is still my opinion, not a citizen? No guns for you.

jamesonamac
06-28-2010, 5:04 AM
The 2nd Amendment does not require training. If you can demonstrate that states that require training before someone "can handle their first gun" have a lower incidence of gun crime, I might be convinced. Anecdotally, states which require training prior to the issuance of a ccw/chl/etc. show no difference in crimes by permit holders v. those who do not require training.

-hanko

Amen for the above post. For those who would require training, or a certificate, maybe you should think about mandatory training for all citizens who would use their fists for self defense. If you see granny being harassed you better not get involved unless you got your "fist training certificate" signed off by the local Sheriff. Any time you are willing to revise the Constitution for someone else, we will ALL end up losing freedoms. I for one am sick and tired of others who would decide my wife can't carry because she doesn't have a "certificate" saying she has been "trained," or a CCW permit. She can shoot just fine, and she knows exactly when she should. This is my first post as I have just joined Calguns, and I have to say I am shocked at how much liberal thinking there is by members on a "gun forum." For those who think we need a law forbidding violent criminals, rapists, child molesters, etc. from having firearms, IMHO you are wrong. The criminals gun ownership, or lack thereof, can easily be addressed as part of their sentencing by the Court (Judge). Do you honestly think a violent criminal on the streets will abide by or even care about a law saying he can't have a gun?

lazs
06-28-2010, 7:21 AM
Oh wait.. he said "pistols" who should be allowed to have pistols.. I think he means glocks. I think he means "who should be allowed to own glocks and compete in pretend combat games"

I would have to change my answer to.. only steely eyed indoor range shooters who have attended one or more 3 week combat courses.

norcal.xd
06-28-2010, 7:33 AM
i said all us citizens. the reason is because even if all guns were illegal people would still find them to buy on the street. (felons) not saying its right but its life........what we need is more ccw's but thats another civil rights fight......

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 8:31 AM
Amen for the above post. For those who would require training, or a certificate, maybe you should think about mandatory training for all citizens who would use their fists for self defense. If you see granny being harassed you better not get involved unless you got your "fist training certificate" signed off by the local Sheriff. Any time you are willing to revise the Constitution for someone else, we will ALL end up losing freedoms. I for one am sick and tired of others who would decide my wife can't carry because she doesn't have a "certificate" saying she has been "trained," or a CCW permit. She can shoot just fine, and she knows exactly when she should. This is my first post as I have just joined Calguns, and I have to say I am shocked at how much liberal thinking there is by members on a "gun forum." For those who think we need a law forbidding violent criminals, rapists, child molesters, etc. from having firearms, IMHO you are wrong. The criminals gun ownership, or lack thereof, can easily be addressed as part of their sentencing by the Court (Judge). Do you honestly think a violent criminal on the streets will abide by or even care about a law saying he can't have a gun?

I have a problem with giving judges (a political position) the power to impose a stripping of 2nd amendment rights without legislative guidelines. Get some whackjob in Chicago or San Francisco - and now all of the sudden anybody with a speeding ticket gets slapped with a "no guns" sentence. No thanks.

BillCA
06-29-2010, 12:01 AM
I have a problem with giving judges (a political position) the power to impose a stripping of 2nd amendment rights without legislative guidelines. Get some whackjob in Chicago or San Francisco - and now all of the sudden anybody with a speeding ticket gets slapped with a "no guns" sentence. No thanks.

FWIW, I think jamesonamac was suggesting that for felonies, the judge could make the determination whether the person should be disqualified from owning firearms. That's certainly one way to do it.

What we probably need are categories of felonies.

There may be crimes which are punishiable as a felony that are, in essence, administrative crimes. For instance, inheriting your father's estate and finding a Vietnam bring-back AK in the attic. Even if you have plenty of documentation, BATF could prosecute for the administrative failure to register the gun (they've done it before). Most such crimes lack either the mens rea (guilty mind) or evil intent. Such crimes are usually not deserving of forfeiture of many of your rights.

Obviously the violent felonies and those that impose a serious burden or impact on more than one other person (e.g. fraud, scams, ID theft, etc.) should be punishiable by the loss of some rights.

domack
06-29-2010, 12:48 AM
Any citizen without a history of violent crimes. The right to bare arms should be for citizens only!

lazs
06-29-2010, 6:55 AM
people who are currently in prison should not be allowed to own handguns... If you don't trust em with a handgun then don't let em out.

jamesonamac
06-29-2010, 6:57 AM
FWIW, I think jamesonamac was suggesting that for felonies, the judge could make the determination whether the person should be disqualified from owning firearms. That's certainly one way to do it.

What we probably need are categories of felonies.

There may be crimes which are punishiable as a felony that are, in essence, administrative crimes. For instance, inheriting your father's estate and finding a Vietnam bring-back AK in the attic. Even if you have plenty of documentation, BATF could prosecute for the administrative failure to register the gun (they've done it before). Most such crimes lack either the mens rea (guilty mind) or evil intent. Such crimes are usually not deserving of forfeiture of many of your rights.

Obviously the violent felonies and those that impose a serious burden or impact on more than one other person (e.g. fraud, scams, ID theft, etc.) should be punishiable by the loss of some rights.

Yes, that is sort of the intent of what I was saying. In reading it again, I also should have said "For those who think we need another law forbidding..." There are some P.O.S. Judges out there, no doubt. That is why there is an appeal system in place. But when lawmakers are allowed to legislate whatever they want without regard for the Constitution, we all lose, big time. It happens a little at a time. A law here, a law there, they slowly whittle away your freedoms. You don't NEED a flash suppressor, you don't NEED a high capacity mag, a law for this, a law for that. That's not a legitimate "sporting" arm, why would you need an "assault" rifle? All of this garbage is an "infringement" on my God given right to Keep and Bear Arms. Remember, judges are there to rule according to the law. I say lets not give them any more laws to use against us, the citizens, restricting the unalienable right to arm ourselves. If a crime is so bad we don't ever want that person to have a firearm, send them to prison for LIFE. Problem solved. I know all to well there are early release programs. FIX OR ELIMINATE THOSE, don't start restricting gun ownership. That's exactly like trying to fix illegal immigration without first sealing up the border. We don't need one more immigration law, we need to solve the problem of an open border.

jamesonamac
06-29-2010, 6:59 AM
people who are currently in prison should not be allowed to own handguns... If you don't trust em with a handgun then don't let em out.

Was working on my reply when you posted that, I think we are on the same page.

grammaton76
06-29-2010, 2:09 PM
Any citizen without a history of violent crimes. The right to bare arms should be for citizens only!

What's your position on long-term resident aliens? There are guys who've lived here 10+ years on a green card (example, our own Calgunner Gose). Personally, I'm fine with anyone legally here owning guns.

VictorFranko
06-29-2010, 2:31 PM
So in your opinion, my father who is a legal permanent resident and has been living in the country for the past 50 years with no criminal history what so ever, and is in the 35% tax bracket who pays his taxes quarterly should have his guns taken away? You might be interested in another group, its called the Brady campaign.

Well, I wasn't speaking directly about your father, but since you bring him up, yes.
May I ask you why in 50 years he hasn't cared enough to become a citizen?

domack
06-29-2010, 2:34 PM
What's your position on long-term resident aliens? There are guys who've lived here 10+ years on a green card (example, our own Calgunner Gose). Personally, I'm fine with anyone legally here owning guns.
If they are a long term legal alien of good standing I see no problem. But for aliens it is a privilege not a right to bare arms. Just wondering why someone who's lived here that long would not petition for naturalized citizenship (not that it's any of my business)?

The 2nt amendment is to protect our constitutional rights.

bigbob76
06-29-2010, 2:43 PM
Because he gets certain benefits when he retires for remaining a citizen of Holland, and no such benefits by giving up his citizenship and becoming an American citizen. The decision is simple economics. So can you explain to me why a legal resident non citizen should not be able to own a gun.

I guess I'm kind of fuzzy on this but I sorta thought Constitutional rights were for American citizens. I'm hearing a lot of perfectly reasonable exceptions but isn't that one reason things are so screwed up today? We've brought emotions into what should be fairly clear cut stuff.

VictorFranko
06-29-2010, 2:45 PM
Because he gets certain benefits when he retires for remaining a citizen of Holland, and no such benefits by giving up his citizenship and becoming an American citizen. The decision is simple economics. So can you explain to me why a legal resident non citizen should not be able to own a gun.

jverham, I mean no disrespect and mean to keep this civil and friendly, OK?

So your father is here to reap the benefits of living in America but will not renounce his citizenship so he can reap the benefits of remaining a citizen of Holland, correct?
That doesn't sound so good when spelled out, does it?
That is exactly the problem with the US.
Do you know, can I move to Holland and as a citizen of the US own property?
A gun?
Heck, I can't even own property in Mexico!
VF

23 Blast
06-29-2010, 3:51 PM
A County Sheriff ( or any agency that issues a CCW permit) can and SHOULD have regulations. ( Qualification, a list of handguns/calibers that You may carry ETC) .

Just like most departments regulate their officers.

This is pretty much my position in the matter. Yes, yes, it's wonderful that we have the 2nd Amendment and all, but were playing "let's pretend" here - in a society that starts out neutral wrt personal weapons ownership.

Just as I wouldn't want unrestricted right of operation of cars (or other heavy machinery), I don't necessarily want untrained people owning guns. Personally I think prospective parents should have to get a license, too - but that's a whole 'nuther thread (or forum, or website(s)) for that matter!!!

VictorFranko
06-29-2010, 3:58 PM
Just remember that as my dad is "reaping" all the benefits of living in America, he is putting in 35% of his income which is way past 500k a year which is more than the majority of Americans are paying. Additionally the "reaping" of money that my father gets when he retires from Holland is tied into the work my grandfather did for the allies during the war.

Can you explain to me what doesn't "sound so good" when it is spelled out.

It's sounds kind of "me-me-me to me", but that's just me :D

35% income tax looks to be approximately 17% less than someone earning your father's income in the Netherlands (52% income tax in Holland???)

It's still my opinion, not a citizen, no guns, no matter how long someone has lived here as a resident alien.
And please, don't even think or suggest that I have something against resident aliens. My wife is a resident alien.
If she doesn't become a citizen soon, "I'm sending her back where she came from! :43:

civilsnake
06-29-2010, 4:09 PM
It's still my opinion, not a citizen, no guns, no matter how long someone has lived here as a resident alien.


What exactly does one's residency status have to do with their ability to handle a firearm or their intention of use?

Suppose his father was a former SAS team member, a certified Glock armorer, and a current pastor at the local church. You'd still say that he shouldn't be allowed to own firearms in this country over his choice of citizenship?

What exactly does loyalty have to do with rights?

JaMail
06-29-2010, 4:14 PM
violent criminals can eventually earn their right to bear arms again.

I know of two people, one of them convicted of armed roberry when he was 18, he kept his life clean, totally straight and narrow after that, and 8 years later, after going to court once a year for those 8 years to request his record be purged, the judge eventually did the legal magic wand wave, and now he can vote and own firearms again.

darksands
06-29-2010, 4:25 PM
I am just trying to understand your rational. I understand your stance, I just don't know why.

I can see both sides of this and I agree that only Citizens should be protected under the constitution. jverham, sounds like you want the best of both worlds. Sometimes you have to pick and choose what's more important. Your father pays his taxes and that's the price he has to pay to be able to work or run a business in the United States which he reaps the benefit of as well. (Sounds like he makes a very comfortable living).

Your father is a Citizen of Holland and chooses to remain a citizen of Holland so he can reap the benefits of that country when he retires and that is totally understandable. Just like in order to reap the benefits of the constitution, he would need to become a citizen of the United States.

Nobody here is saying that your father should not have a gun based on his person. I'm sure he is a stand up guy and the U.S. would be lucky to have more citizens like him.

darksands
06-29-2010, 4:27 PM
What exactly does one's residency status have to do with their ability to handle a firearm or their intention of use?

Suppose his father was a former SAS team member, a certified Glock armorer, and a current pastor at the local church. You'd still say that he shouldn't be allowed to own firearms in this country over his choice of citizenship?

What exactly does loyalty have to do with rights?



Residency status has nothing to do with one's ability to use firearms. The issue is not if they can use a gun, it's if they should be protected under the constitution.

civilsnake
06-29-2010, 4:32 PM
Residency status has nothing to do with one's ability to use firearms. The issue is not if they can use a gun, it's if they should be protected under the constitution.

So a resident alien has less right to defend his- or herself than a citizen?

five.five-six
06-29-2010, 4:36 PM
who should be allowed to own pistols?

only elected politicians and movie stars

darksands
06-29-2010, 4:53 PM
I'm basing this as a theoretical issue. Yes, you are correct that residents are protected under the constitution. The theory is that only citizens be protected. Maybe in this hypothetical world of mine citizens get a higher level of protection than permanent residents.

Maybe my understanding of this topic is misunderstood and this thread is not hypothetical in nature and my understanding of the question "Who should be allowed to own pistols?" really means "Who can own (in this day and age) pistols?" And I guess I am extending the question out further to incorporate the entire constitution and who should fall under the protection of it and get the benefits.

And lets say in my hypothetical United States, non-citizen residents are not allowed to own firearms but becoming a Citizen takes 5 minutes on a computer or you have the option to become a citizen right then and there when you buy a gun. Would that be so bad?

And please, these are hypothetical and should be discussed. I am not hard in my ways and have an open mind to opinions of others. I am not arguing but exploring the opinions of others so I am able to understand all sides of the situation.

VictorFranko
06-29-2010, 5:03 PM
I am just trying to understand your rational. I understand your stance, I just don't know why.

My rational is this:
The rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America do not extend to "visitors".
I say "visitor" because it sounds nicer than "alien".
In my opinion, your father, although he has been here 50 years and pays taxes, and I am sure is a decent and upstanding individual, is a "visitor", plain and simple.
He has a home, the Netherlands.
Therefore, he should not be allowed to own firearms, just like he is not allowed to vote.

It sounds like your father has made millions here in the good old USofA. Dosen't it bother you just a little that in 50 years he has never taken part in the greatest democratic process (the right to vote) in the world?

There should be some rewards for being a citizen in this damn country, and the right to own firearms should be one of them.

bigbob76
06-29-2010, 5:19 PM
Hypothetically if this is the case, I would argue that if becoming a citizen is a 5 min computer process, then it is unnecessary. What does spending 5 min on a computer prove? I am still not following your thought process here.

I was trying to follow that hypothetical post too but some of the posts in this thread are making me think it's possible to be so open minded that your brains are falling out.

darksands
06-29-2010, 5:32 PM
Hypothetically if this is the case, I would argue that if becoming a citizen is a 5 min computer process, then it is unnecessary. What does spending 5 min on a computer prove? I am still not following your thought process here.

Does being a citizen vs permanent resident......make you more safe?.....make you more responsible?.....make you more trustworthy?.....what is it?

The idea behind the example of the computer in 5 minutes is because some may argue that you need to jump through hoops and pay lots and lots of money to become a citizen. The point is to make it so becoming a citizen is a rewarding and easy experience and by saying becoming a citizen is unnecessary equates to owning a gun is unnecessary.

Responsibility and trustworthiness are characteristics of an individual. You can be a resident and be perfectly trustworthy and perfectly responsible. It's not like becoming a citizen all of a sudden makes you a stand up guy. The constitution does not say that you are not trust worthy and you are not responsible. It just doesn't apply to you if you are not a citizen.

In this hypothetical U.S. we want you to be a Citizen. It's saying that you are trustworthy, you are responsible, you are an outstanding individual and we want you to be a citizen so you can have the rights and the benefits of being a citizen.

I would like to ask in this situation, why would you not want to become a citizen?

domack
06-29-2010, 5:52 PM
This is pretty much my position in the matter. Yes, yes, it's wonderful that we have the 2nd Amendment and all, but were playing "let's pretend" here - in a society that starts out neutral wrt personal weapons ownership.

Just as I wouldn't want unrestricted right of operation of cars (or other heavy machinery), I don't necessarily want untrained people owning guns. Personally I think prospective parents should have to get a license, too - but that's a whole 'nuther thread (or forum, or website(s)) for that matter!!!

I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't nominated you for a seat on the supreme court yet! :eek:

VictorFranko
06-29-2010, 6:05 PM
A visitor implies that he is visiting which he is not, he is a resident alien. No one takes a 50 year visit. Technically the USA is his home considering that he doesn't own one in Holland, and that he has lived in the US longer than he has lived anywhere else.

In reality, both technically and legally, Holland is your father's home, no matter how you bend it.

From Merriam-Webster:

alien
Pronunciation: \ˈā-lē-ən, ˈāl-yən\
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign c : exotic 1


Secondly there are rewards for being a citizen, its called voting and holding higher political positions. There is current law for all of this.

Actually, the reward for being a citizen is called called the Bill of Rights.
I just read the Bill of Rights and I find statements such as:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States"........
and here's one the founding fathers must have really liked because they used it a lot, "The rights of the citizens of the United States".....
Funny, I can't find "the rights of resident aliens" mentioned anywhere.

darksands
06-29-2010, 6:08 PM
Under your situation, the only reason not to become a citizen, is if there are benefits such as those my father receives by not becoming a citizen.

And that is an excellent reason not to become a Citizen.

I'd like to also bring up another discussion topic related and be a bit more specific on the second amendment with the previous situation in play. Although I don't think that non-citizens should be protected under the 2A, non-citizens can still use and keep guns in their home. The idea is, for example, jverham can buy and own guns because he is a citizen. He can keep the guns at his father's home and his father can use them for his own protection. However, if his father uses the gun in any illegal manner such as robbery or murder etc, responsibility of said crime is on both jverham and his father.

darksands
06-29-2010, 6:37 PM
Let me ask this to both of you. Should the first amendment not apply to permanent residents as well, and if so why?

Please give an example on why permanent residents would need the protection of the first amendment.


My fear is this is exactly what a straw purchase is. I would buy a gun in my name for the use by my father. This is illegal.

I apologize for my lack of detail in my example. You are still the buyer of the gun. You keep it at your parents house. He has access to the gun if ever something happens. Let's make it simple, this is not a straw purchase in this hypothetical situation and you would not get in trouble if your father used it in self defense. You would get in trouble if he used it to commit a crime as stated.

jamesonamac
06-29-2010, 6:43 PM
This is pretty much my position in the matter. Yes, yes, it's wonderful that we have the 2nd Amendment and all, but were playing "let's pretend" here - in a society that starts out neutral wrt personal weapons ownership.

Just as I wouldn't want unrestricted right of operation of cars (or other heavy machinery), I don't necessarily want untrained people owning guns. Personally I think prospective parents should have to get a license, too - but that's a whole 'nuther thread (or forum, or website(s)) for that matter!!!

This type of thinking is why I fear for the future of the United States.

darksands
06-29-2010, 6:46 PM
Here is the definition of a Permanent Resident Alien fron the department of homeland security.
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/stdfdef.shtm#15

Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States.


What is difficult is that there were no permanent residents back when the bill of rights was signed.

And both definitions of "alien" are correct. Although you are a permanent resident, your allegiance is still to the country you are a citizen in. You are accorded the privilege of residing in the United States. Question is, if we ever went to war with Holland, would he still be accorded the privilege of staying here?

domack
06-29-2010, 6:57 PM
This is pretty much my position in the matter. Yes, yes, it's wonderful that we have the 2nd Amendment and all, but were playing "let's pretend" here - in a society that starts out neutral wrt personal weapons ownership.

Just as I wouldn't want unrestricted right of operation of cars (or other heavy machinery), I don't necessarily want untrained people owning guns. Personally I think prospective parents should have to get a license, too - but that's a whole 'nuther thread (or forum, or website(s)) for that matter!!!

This type of thinking is why I fear for the future of the United States.

Scary, I wonder what makes "23 Blast" think he'll have any of those privileges? I hope he's not a LEO!

darksands
06-29-2010, 9:04 PM
So how would this be any different than if my father was to buy a gun himself? I don't see the difference besides me being held accountable for his actions, which wouldn't fly since legally an adult cannot be held accountable for another adults actions that he had nothing to do with.

In this hypothetical U.S. you are responsible for your own guns and by giving or let's say loaning it to your father, you are going to be responsible for what he does with it. I guess it's a bit of personal responsibility and judgment. In this case you trust your father enough to use a gun for the right reason. If let's say you had a friend that wasn't a citizen, you probably wouldn't loan him the gun cause you really don't know him that well which would be a good decision.

Freedom of religion, or to assembly peacefully to protest something, say if BP wanted to build an oil rig in your back yard and you didn't want them to.

Great example. Per the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the first amendment states that the government cannot make a law that stops people from free speech. So your father can protest and there is no law stopping him from doing so.

VictorFranko
06-30-2010, 4:11 AM
jverham, let me cut to the chase rather than argue through the Constitution article by article.

America should be for Americans and for those that want to be Americans only.
There should be no "endless" permanent resident alien status.
And there sure as hell shouldn't be any illegal aliens here, ever.
Resident alien status was created as a path to citizenship and should be used for that purpose only.
Come here, work, learn, enjoy and become eligible for citizenship in five years, just like now. For those that take a little longer, stay an extra five years (hence the 10 year green card).
Not a citizen by the time your ten years are up? Go back to where you came from or go someplace else.
We don't need foreigners to come here just for personal profit or to dodge higher tax rates in their own countries.
With true unemployment numbers running in the 17% range, why should we let foreigners come here and take jobs from Americans?

America used to be like a large 4 bedroom 2 bath house with two people living in it. Lots of room.
Soon a couple kids came and now there were 4 people living in the house, still lots of room for everybody.
But then Aunt Kate and Uncle Bill came to live with their 4 teenagers.
Then Grandma came to live too.
Suddenly, there were lines to use the bathroom and not enough hot water and everybody had to share a bedroom and there were arguments over closet space and the front of the house looked like a used car lot.
And the kitchen! Way too small. There was not enough seating around the dining table and the refrigerator was too small to hold enough food for everyone.
And everybody had there own televisions and computers and soon the electrical system of the house was overtaxed and always breaking down.

The above is exactly what is happening here.
Look at our roadways and our schools and our infrastructure. Everything is breaking down and wearing out. And there is no money to repair or replace the infrastructure. All the experts agree.
Traffic is so f*cking bad you can hardly drive around Los Angeles anymore, and it is only getting worse.

Your father made the choice long ago that it was more important to be a citizen of Holland than a citizen of the United States. That is great and I am happy for him, but he should live in Holland, in my opinion, and leave America for Americans and for those that want to be Americans.

bigbob76
06-30-2010, 5:23 AM
jverham, let me cut to the chase rather than argue through the Constitution article by article.

America should be for Americans and for those that want to be Americans only.
There should be no "endless" permanent resident alien status.
And there sure as hell shouldn't be any illegal aliens here, ever.
Resident alien status was created as a path to citizenship and should be used for that purpose only.
Come here, work, learn, enjoy and become eligible for citizenship in five years, just like now. For those that take a little longer, stay an extra five years (hence the 10 year green card).
Not a citizen by the time your ten years are up? Go back to where you came from or go someplace else.
We don't need foreigners to come here just for personal profit or to dodge higher tax rates in their own countries.
With true unemployment numbers running in the 17% range, why should we let foreigners come here and take jobs from Americans?

America used to be like a large 4 bedroom 2 bath house with two people living in it. Lots of room.
Soon a couple kids came and now there were 4 people living in the house, still lots of room for everybody.
But then Aunt Kate and Uncle Bill came to live with their 4 teenagers.
Then Grandma came to live too.
Suddenly, there were lines to use the bathroom and not enough hot water and everybody had to share a bedroom and there were arguments over closet space and the front of the house looked like a used car lot.
And the kitchen! Way too small. There was not enough seating around the dining table and the refrigerator was too small to hold enough food for everyone.
And everybody had there own televisions and computers and soon the electrical system of the house was overtaxed and always breaking down.

The above is exactly what is happening here.
Look at our roadways and our schools and our infrastructure. Everything is breaking down and wearing out. And there is no money to repair or replace the infrastructure. All the experts agree.
Traffic is so f*cking bad you can hardly drive around Los Angeles anymore, and it is only getting worse.

Your father made the choice long ago that it was more important to be a citizen of Holland than a citizen of the United States. That is great and I am happy for him, but he should live in Holland, in my opinion, and leave America for Americans and for those that want to be Americans.

Whether or not anybody likes your statement it would be hard to argue with your reason and logic. I guess that's why people muddy the water with a lot of emotional stuff and switch to personal attacks when they feel threatened by reason and logic.

lazs
06-30-2010, 9:33 AM
If you take a short drive out of lost angeles you will see that there is plenty of room left in America.

We would have plenty of money to have the best roads in the world if we only spent the tax collected for roads on... well... gee.. roads. Less than 50% of the money that is supposed to go to maintaining the roads goes for that.

Other infrastructure? a lot of it is so weighed down with worthless regulations that nothing gets done. Have you noticed the multi million dollar handicapped ramps at every corner on your sidewalks yet? they cost most cities about twice what the entire public works spends on repairs in a year.. No... I don't hate handicapped but I don't think we should spend all out of proportion either.

My father made a choice a long time ago that lost angeles was no longer fit for human habitation.. I am glad he did so every time I have to go through there.

stormy_clothing
06-30-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm curious what your thoughts are as to who (in our society) should be allowed to own a pistol. Just would like to point out that pistols is a defensive weapon.

No a pistol is not a defensive weapon it's a tool. You can fix a car with it or throw it at someone but until you take action it's inert piece of metal.

I think pistols should be legal at 16 if you can drive a car or at 18 if you can join the military.

I think anyone not in jail should be allowed - I think jail terms should be long enough and hard enough so that when you have done your time, you've done your time. And don't need to be penalized any further for the rest of your life.

But then again I put more stock into how a parent raises there children over 16 years than what the army can do in 2 months and because I shot my first machine gun at 4 without issue.

domack
06-30-2010, 2:10 PM
If you take a short drive out of lost angeles you will see that there is plenty of room left in America.

We would have plenty of money to have the best roads in the world if we only spent the tax collected for roads on... well... gee.. roads. Less than 50% of the money that is supposed to go to maintaining the roads goes for that.

Other infrastructure? a lot of it is so weighed down with worthless regulations that nothing gets done. Have you noticed the multi million dollar handicapped ramps at every corner on your sidewalks yet? they cost most cities about twice what the entire public works spends on repairs in a year.. No... I don't hate handicapped but I don't think we should spend all out of proportion either.

My father made a choice a long time ago that lost angeles was no longer fit for human habitation.. I am glad he did so every time I have to go through there.

This why us in Los angeles area are more protective of citizenship than our northern bros. We've seen what unrestricted immigration does to a city and it's not pretty. When they riot waving their Mexican flags it makes me wonder why they aren't deported. I know there's a big differences between a legal alien and an illegal alien. This is why I think legal long term immigrants who are not at pubic charge should have the "privilege" not right to own firearms.

VictorFranko
07-01-2010, 8:45 AM
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I knew that from the very beginning! :D

VictorFranko
07-01-2010, 9:06 AM
If you take a short drive out of lost angeles you will see that there is plenty of room left in America.

Lazs, it's not about how much "physical" room there is in America.
By your standards, then there is plenty of room for Mexicans to stay in Mexico, Canadians to stay in Canada, Iranians to stay in Iran, so forth and so on........
It's about food and water, it's about the infrastructure, it's about J-O-B-S.
If you are young enough, you are going to see what I am talking about in the next 15 to 20 years.
Remember you heard it here first..........

lazs
07-01-2010, 9:41 AM
victor.. I think that living like a trapped rat in lost angeles has distorted your thinking. Not your fault. I find that people from big cities tend to be drama queens in any case.

Except for really stupid, paranoid and feel good laws that come out of the big city blue areas.. things are not going to be much different 15 or 20 years from now. There may be more jobs or may be slightly less.. if you have lived long enough you will realize that jobs are, and always have been cyclical in nature. If you have lived in a rural area with a garden and some animals and a well.. food and water scarcity would never have even occured to you.

I think that cap and trade and laws passed by your friends and neighbors in your big cities will affect you a lot more in $500 a month sewer bills and $1,000 a month power bills in the future.

The EPA will be into every aspect of your life and will cost you about a third or more of your income.. You will come to realize that the IRS is a powder puff charity compared to the EPA in those same 15 or 20 years you speak of. You will have plenty of food and water.. if they allow you to have it and you can afford it.

Ultimate
07-01-2010, 9:57 AM
As a human being I believe it is the right of every person without criminal history to have the means to defend themselves and not live in fear.

I don't care if they are from Holland, USA, Mexico, or Mars.

I have lived in the big cities all my life until recently depending on what one would consider Bakersfield. No offense but immigrants have always brought forth a positive injection of solidity so that more wealth can be built on top of the foundation.

It has been that way since the country was made and it is still like that. But when you fight with the current like you have been for over 234 years you are bound to hit the same rut over and over and over.

Congested cities are just that, congested cities. It is much easier to blame a scapegoat than urban and regional planners.

ArtP88
07-01-2010, 10:30 AM
Anyone citizen without a history of violence. I say even a non-violent felony convict should be allowed.

VictorFranko
07-01-2010, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=lazs;4547200]victor.. I think that living like a trapped rat in lost angeles has distorted your thinking. Not your fault. I find that people from big cities tend to be drama queens in any case.[\QUOTE]

Ha! I don't live in L.A.! Just close enough that sometimes I have to go there or through there (like to the airport). I don't even live in L.A. County!
And I sure hope you are not calling me a "drama queen", if you were I'd have to biatch-slap you with my purse :43:

domack
07-01-2010, 10:51 AM
victor.. I think that living like a trapped rat in lost angeles has distorted your thinking. Not your fault. I find that people from big cities tend to be drama queens in any case.

Except for really stupid, paranoid and feel good laws that come out of the big city blue areas.. things are not going to be much different 15 or 20 years from now. There may be more jobs or may be slightly less.. if you have lived long enough you will realize that jobs are, and always have been cyclical in nature. If you have lived in a rural area with a garden and some animals and a well.. food and water scarcity would never have even occured to you.

I think that cap and trade and laws passed by your friends and neighbors in your big cities will affect you a lot more in $500 a month sewer bills and $1,000 a month power bills in the future.

The EPA will be into every aspect of your life and will cost you about a third or more of your income.. You will come to realize that the IRS is a powder puff charity compared to the EPA in those same 15 or 20 years you speak of. You will have plenty of food and water.. if they allow you to have it and you can afford it.

What makes you think People who live in LA county are for cap and trade where they would tax the very air we breathe? I think you have the wrong city:rolleyes:.

bigbob76
07-01-2010, 12:35 PM
So what's with you guys that don't put any location in the upper right hand corner of your posts?

domack
07-01-2010, 12:59 PM
So what's with you guys that don't put any location in the upper right hand corner of your posts?
Pedro is the location, locals pronounce it Peedro "San Pedro".
I currently live in Rancho Palos Verdes (on the hill above Pedro)which I find stuffy...

j1133s
07-01-2010, 1:42 PM
No a pistol is not a defensive weapon it's a tool. You can fix a car with it or throw it at someone but until you take action it's inert piece of metal.
.,..

You are absolutely correct. I should have entirely used "tool" instead of "weapon" or even defensive adj. It is merely a tool. (I can't believe what 3 yrs in CA has done to me. I would neve have used the word "weapon" 3 yrs ago.)

j1133s
07-01-2010, 1:52 PM
The HSC is, as far as I'm concerned, an unconstitutional tax on the 2A right. For thee and me, it might amortize out over a 5 year period to less than $1 per gun. But for others, it amounts to a $25 tax on the purchase of the only firearm they may ever buy.

The Safety handling demo should be SOP. If you go buy a motorcycle, most shops will give you a 30-second-gold-plated review of the controls when they deliver the bike to you. Throttle, brakes, clutch, shifter, kill-switch, etc. There's no reason that a formal test is required or a fee should be paid.

+1 on HSC.

BillCA, want to go for a ride? I first rode my bike in 6 months this Monday.... and I'm beginning to remember how much fun it is to ride.

bigbob76
07-01-2010, 3:11 PM
Pedro is the location, locals pronounce it Peedro "San Pedro".
I currently live in Rancho Palos Verdes (on the hill above Pedro)which I find stuffy...

I know, I grew up here. I'm talking about all the guys that don't have anything referring to location in the upper right hand corner of their posts.

VictorFranko
07-02-2010, 4:36 AM
Whether or not anybody likes your statement it would be hard to argue with your reason and logic. I guess that's why people muddy the water with a lot of emotional stuff and switch to personal attacks when they feel threatened by reason and logic.

Thanks BigBob.
Yes, many muddy the waters and do the personal attack thing when faced with reason and logic.
jverham is cool, he isn't like that. It was nice to have a little debate over something important to both of us without it turning ugly.

gmd455
07-02-2010, 7:22 AM
All citizens. There should be no restrictions on buying or what kind of gun you can own. We should be equal to the average infantry men. We should have the ability to defend our self from the bad guys and a tyrannical government, and I don't think we can right now.

Andy Taylor
07-02-2010, 7:26 AM
Do these same people include murderers who plead down to manslaughter, child molesters, serial rapists, wife/husband abusers, gang members and many many others?


We are talking a "perfect world" situation here.
In such a world true Murderers would not be allowed to plead down to manslaughter, Child molesters, rapists, & spousal abusers would all be put to death, or locked up forever. Just being a gang member should not, and currently is not, a bar to owning a firearm. Being convicted of crimes that gang members typically do would put them away, as I stated above. Who determines what is a "Gang" and what is a "club"? Now that is a slippery slope.

glockwise2000
07-03-2010, 12:32 AM
US citizens (and legals) w/o gun crime conviction.