Our founding fathers also could not imagine radio tv or the internet but freedom of the press still applies
I also doubt they could conceive the number of religious organizations that exist today but freedom of religion still applies
As to “assault weapons “ I’m pretty sure they were banned
how many rounds is too many for a magazine (not clip) to hold and are we talking about pistols rifles and or shotguns because most of my pistols hold more than my rifles
I do agree ALL of us who even consider owning any firearm need more training, but I also believe the only people who get anything out of training classes are the ones who want to be there (think meetings at work if I want to attend I am attentive and participate if not I at least try to stay awake)
One last thought before I go you said you think the required training is a joke I believe the government using an infringement of my rights to get more money is a joke
Sp here is the thing with these conversations. What are the chances that conversations such as these will actually result in someone changing their minds? I have had conversations with people who’s views are even more to the left than @Warren11, who’s opinions and views, in my opinion, are not as extreme as some would say, but are probably more in line with a center-left non-gun owner. Please do not view this as an insult or a swipe, as I assure you, it is not. These are common views held by non-gun owners who see what happens when guns, which are an inanimate object, neither capable of good or evil, that is purely in the mind and heart of the wielder, and simply want to find a way to get “gun violence” and “mass shootings” to stop. But back to my point, how many of us are willing to consider changing our opinions? I will freely admit on this that I am not willing to change my position, which has been formed by a lifetime of gun ownership, carrying for half my life, hunting, competing, the list goes on. I am also very educated on the issues, having read and studied the founders, reading the Federalist papers as well as books and other publications from those men. I am also up to date on current crime statistics, the benefits of gun ownership, and the ineffectiveness of gun control. Prime example is the failure of the Clinton crime bill that had in it more than what most consider “common sense gun control” but was allowed to expire because the data showed that it had no impact on crime. I have read extensively from researchers such as John Lott and am very familiar with the studies put out by organizations that are wanting more gun control. Point is not that I am the most educated person on this subject, far from it. Simply that my position is hard-formed by diving deep into the subject. If one wants to get me to even try to move me from my position, one needs to come armed with hard stats from reputable sources. But I am also supportive of people of other positions. You have all come to your positions based on reasons important to you. So, I respect your position, but I have one more question for you. Are you open to learning more and possibly changing your position, or are you simply wanting to point out to a community that has a position that is going to be pretty consistent that there is another viewpoint out there? Either is fine. I would simply like to understand a bit more what you would like to gain from this conversation so that we as a community can respond appropriately.
Technically CONVICTED felons lose other constitutional rights as well (i.e. voting, being president, etc). But it’s NOT because the federal (or any) government has the RIGHT to infringe upon your constitutional rights. That would make them a dictatorship. It’s because the founders recognized that there may be a need to deny these rights to certain individuals (criminals), but even then never without first applying this other constitutionally protected thing called due process.
I do agree that certain people should not have guns and that everyone who owns them should know how to use them. The fun starts when we try figure out how tho get their.
In any event, I’m still curious as to your thoughts on my earlier questions.
I believe all pro 2A gun owners want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We have over 20,000+ gun laws right now to do just that very thing. So what new law is going to accomplish what the previous 20,000+ gun laws haven’t?
Are you aware that If you take the 5 largest cities out of the equation for gun violence in the USA,(these cities which coincidentally have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country) we drop from top 20 in gun violence to down around 180 ish on the world ?
Are you aware that legal CCW permit holders are probably the most likely law abiding portion of our population. A CCW permit holder is 7 times less likely to be arrested than a law enforcement officer is? (There’s a study on the USCCA web site about that very issue). There’s 18,000,000 of us. Probably more now with so many first time gun owners since Covid 19.
As far as removing “Assault Rifles”. What exactly is an Assault Rifle in your definition? Are you aware that more people are killed by being beaten to death by their attackers hands and feet. Or by blunt objects. Than there are being shot by an attacker or defenders rifle.
How does limiting magazine size contribute to keeping guns out of criminals hands?
I am not being argumentative I am truly curious what a liberal Democrats thinking is in regard to new laws and what they will accomplish that the pre-existing 20,000+ gun laws do not.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope you continue to do so in the future. We disagree on numerous points but we can still politely discuss those disagreements in this community.
Why do you believe in creating special classes of citizens in an egalitarian society?
This is true, and no one I know that carries has fired only 6 rounds. Government mandated training is a bad idea. The numerous states that do it have various fees from hundreds to thousands of dollars; various required amounts of classroom and range time. This proves that it is just a number to make them feel good, not that x numbers of hours makes anyone qualified, just as your claim about 6 rounds. The worst part of it is that it makes the citizens that are more likely to need to have a firearm, the least able to afford one - the poor that live in bad neighborhoods.
Gun control is discriminatory. Minorities, the poor and women have the lowest numbers of firearm ownership to their percentages of the population.
As a former military member, what is your definition of an “assault rifle”? How is limiting the number of rounds we are “allowed” going to protect us? The states that limit capacities for “safety”, ironically exempt police because the police believe more rounds make them safer. How is the opposite true for us? We are our own first responders - the reason you carry. How many rounds do you believe you should be “allowed” to carry? Why?
I have not researched that one, and the limited search I just did makes it appear that, just like other destructive devices, with an NFA tax stamp and a legal seller, it could be possible. We are legally able to own tanks, cannons, and explosives, just as we are legally able to own automatic weapons, expensive, but legal.
The founders did not deny rights to criminals. The 1938 FFA, superseded by 1968 GCA did that. The 2A does not limit anyone’s rights, it protects our RKBA - without any limitations. Our government, through years of over-reach, has added constrictions to our RKBA that are outside its authority and power.
@Warren11 Welcome aboard! 'Nother Retired Squid here. Curious what your rate/rank was? You mentioned that you had “hours of firearms training” So I’ll ask you this;
Do you think the training you were provided in the military in any way trained you to carry a concealed weapon?
I too would like there to be mandatory firearms training but not just for concealed weapons permits. I want the federal gov’t to institute MANDATORY firearms education up to and including live fire as a MANDATORY component of HIGH SCHOOL. This is of course how we got Drivers Education. Too many people were getting killed in cars so our gov’t MANDATED that all public High Schools will require drivers education. Seems like a good idea but sadly cars still kill more people than guns every year, this year may be up for grabs.
Magazine restrictions are a waste of time and effort as evidenced by the 1994 AWB. That ban is the ONLY reason I want to shake Bill Clinton’s hand. If he had not done that we would still be running around with the M-16A2. It DIRECTLY cause American ingenuity to kick into overdrive and the result is the M-4 platform that most of us are familiar with today.
Glad you stuck your neck out and glad to have you here. I hope you will be able to articulate your view points well as there are some very savvy folks here with more facts and numbers than you can shake a stick at.
I’m nosey, and myself also a ret’d Squid, and asked that question plus date ret’d, about 8 hrs ago.
Hey, you never know if you’ll run into someone you served with.
I pretty much disagree with all of your opening statement. I’d say we can all agree that the framers of this nation, were educated men. Both well spoken, and well written. Being that they were still closely tied to England, they probably wrote and spoke “proper Queens English.” All that said
“A well regulated militia, the rights of the people shall not be infringed.” That comma, is one of the single most important points of punctuation in existence. That pause, stops the discussion of what is for the militia, and then starts a new thought . So, “the rights of the people shall not be infringed” is for the personal rights, not the militia.
Assault rifle. Assault is an action. I can assault someone with a hammer, a ball bat(FBI data says this it the preferred weapon), or even my bare hands.
Mandatory training. If this was an issue, states with Constitutional Carry would have overwhelmingly high rates of shootings. They do not.
What other rights require training? We are all responsible for the proper action, or misuse of our rights. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, unless there is a fire.
Again, this is all my take on the discussion, respectfully.
Thanks for sharing your point of view and being willing to have a discussion with people who share different viewpoints. I find it very refreshing you had the willingness to do that.
I’ve heard this argument over and over again and on the surface I see why some anti-gunners find it a relevant talking point, cause if you only look at it from that perspective, But…
I don’t believe the founding fathers foresaw gangs roaming the streets at night looking for victims. I don’t think they saw drug cartels infiltrating the very heart of the country. I don’t think they envisioned single mothers having to travel across cities for work, sometimes on foot, in an effort to provide for their children. I don’t think they saw mobs of people stopping traffic and beating vehicles either…
I think that the founding fathers knew there would be technological advances. Maybe not the M4A1 or semi automatic pistols, but advances in firearms, tactics, ammunition, etc. You can’t for one second believe that they would be so narrow minded to think that muskets would be the best technology in firearms forever.
Welcome the community Shipmate, I have to disagree about the AR 15. It is a semi automatic rifle which fires one round only with each squeeze of the trigger. I also own a Remington 242 semi automatic rifle for deer hunting in a 30.06 which shoots the same way as the AR15. It also shoots once per trigger squeeze. What is to keep the gun grabbers from calling it an assault rifle?
Welcome aboard @Warren11! You’re not alone out on the left flank as it may appear. NPR did a story about USCCA last year, and I think it was Tim who said 40% of members are democrats. It does feel a bit lonely sometimes here in the Community, and you may get reminded sometimes that you hate America and want to destroy it But as you’ve found already, people here are (mostly) civil and ready to engage, leading with evidence and rationality. I’ve learned a lot here and really value this as the only venue that I participate in where people are really willing to talk across all our respective divides. As you mentioned, that is so valuable in this age of division and derision.
I tend blue or really blue on most issues, and have found myself rethinking some of the positions I’ve had due in no small part to the dialogue here. Here’s where things shake out for me now:
— 2A — it doesn’t matter at all what I or anyone else think the founders meant. The Supreme Court is where constitutionality is determined, and in the Heller decision, they decided that 2A is an individual right, not tied to militias or well-regulated or anything else. They did suggest that there can be limits on those rights, which is where we are now.
— I generally am in favor of universal background checks and red-flag laws as long as there is strong due process and the right to appeal. Most Americans, both R and D, agree.
— As to banning “assault” weapons (I’m a vet too), and magazine capacity, I have not seen any evidence that they reduce violence. The vast majority of “gun violence” is carried out with handguns. The ARs get the headlines (and I don’t miss bump stocks), but until someone shows me stats that the benefits of losing them outweigh the costs, I don’t see the point.
In any event, thanks so much for outing yourself right off the bat, and trust that you have much more company than you might suspect. Welcome!
I agree with @CascadiaNow… I don’t care if you’re a democrat, Republican, libertarian, or think a pie could run the country better than any available option…you deserve the right to be responsibly armed, have your own opinions, and beliefs. While I may not agree, I will do my best to always be respectful and share in civil conversation. Some people think Democrats are the epitome of evil as some think that of Republicans, but in the end all of us in this community have something in common…I think that makes us more similar than what party we back.
Welcome glad you’re here. This gives us a chance to hear unique opinions and helps us understand the feelings some may have with ownership of a weapon.
First I need to clear up a couple of things.
1- in the civilian market there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”
2- it’s a magazine, none of my clips holds an excess amount of ammunition.
Training is a responsibility of it’s owner.
Personally I feel training for your drivers license is a bit of a joke. I haven’t done the research, but I’m fairly confident that there are more car accidents than there are negligent discharges! There’s no waiting period (excluding age 16) to drive a 2,000 pound vehicle. (no waiting period on drinking except age).
There are more people driving drunk right now, than there are good guys with holstered guns sitting at a bar!
Training never stops. But I have to ask, the day the military put a weapon in your hand and showed you the very basics, you pointed at the target, and in a effort to not disappoint the trainer, how well did you do, did you at least hit the target?
Furthermore, that first round sent a chill up your spine and a thud in your shoulder, but it was a cool feeling. So I have no doubt you were ready for your second shot, you focused real hard to do better and maybe you did.
After that session was over you were a young badass with a gun. It’s natural to want to get better. So we train, personally, before Covid I practiced three times a week. Now it’s nightly dry fire. From what I do see on the range there are people that need more formal education in handling a weapon. In addition, there’s more to just the handling, I try to study states laws, ballistics, strategy, tactics, first aid and a whole host of other sources to increase my knowledge, so when I train my grandkids, they will know how and when to handle a weapon. My entire family are CCW holders.
From your very first day on the range, IMHO, you felt , wow, not so hard to pull a trigger. Sending a round down range and hitting the “X” was little more difficult.
My point is civilians are not owning weapons because they want to be SWAT operators or SERE trained Seals. They just want to be able (and most people are able, barring any head injuries, to fire a weapon and drive a car) to be safe and protect the ones we love. In today’s environment it’s becoming the most sought after right, since the drivers license. Let’s also remember driving is a privilege and owning the gun is my right! That’s my humble point of view.
As far as waiting periods, I sorta agree but only the periods that are currently on the books. I have a beautiful wife and two beautiful daughters, and a piece of paper that says bad guy can’t come near any of them is as valuable as a “Gun Free Zone” sign on my lawn.
Thank you for your kind welcome. I appreciate your comments and respect your views and everyone’s views that have been posted. We, the members of this community, are the legal and most likely responsible gun owners in this country. Why else would we pay for insurance in case we discharge our weapons?
I understand how you interpret the Constitution and how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. I, along with many others disagree with that interpretation on straight legal grounds. The last thing I want to do is to begin to write an amicus brief to support my argument; I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with so many who interpret the second amendment in the way the Court has.
I do agree with you on universal background checks and red-flag laws. Closing loopholes at gun shoes is a big issue with me. I also believe that you should have the means to appeal a decision of denial to the courts in an expedited manner.
Regarding magazine capacity and assault rifles used to murder our fellow citizens, there are many. I do not believe there is any reason that a private citizen needs a weapon designed specifically for killing other humans in a combat situation that has to be made available to the general public. My example: Sandy Hook Elementary Bushmaster XM-15 Clip size 30 rounds. Result:26 dead including 20 children.
A simple handgun with 8 shots would not have been able to inflict as many casualties. Yes, the guy was nuts. Yes, the gun was purchased legally by his mom and he killed her and stole it. She failed him and society by having this weapon anywhere near him with his ability to access it. Lack of personal responsibility cost her her life. But what the heck was she doing with that much firepower? Zombie apocalypse?
Again, thank you for your kind response and warm welcome.
