[CFrance]

[quote=TexaninVA;838712]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Safety training, waiting periods etc are fine if done in a reasonable manner and, as mentioned earlier, I have no problem with that in a constitutional sense.

I have a big problem however if "the authorities" say one cannot own a firearm for self-defense. That's kind of like the whole point of owning a firearm isn't it ?

Although I am not a gun advocate or enthusiast, I have to agree with you on the self-defense issue. But the rest of their law appeals to me.

[Taltarzac725]

[quote=CFrance;838693]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Frankly, I don't trust anybody on anything having to do with guns in the US. What I like about the Australian law is that it limits the kinds of guns--the kind that enable you to shoot many things/people at one time. And also that anyone with a mental problem cannot own a gun. I also like the 28-day waiting period, and the requirement to take gun safety training. I don't believe any of this would be unconstitutional in the US, except in the eyes of certain groups.

These laws came about after a couple of group massacres in the '90s. The government took action and succeeded.

Power can be abused easily and has been repeatedly in US history. Black activists, for instance, were labeled paranoid schizophrenic. The people in power were after them and had enough power to do something about it. Very recently, the military labeled women who had been abused sexually by officers as people with difficult personalities. The Library of Congress had had a policy which may or may not still be in place of labeling problem employees mentally ill. This was according to a CBS News National report of around July 6, 1996 or thereabouts. I remember when I fought for my right to the pursuit of happiness through seeking employment after my contract with the University of Minnesota Law Library expired and was not being renewed, the Law Library Administration and maybe others in the Law School Administration started in a subtle manner putting my mental health in question over a nine month period of January through September of 1991. They were not trying to help me but were addressing my own problems with their resources available to survivors/victims of crimes. If an advocate does not like what the person is saying because it is true to the facts, unprincipled advocates will use attacks against the person rather than addressing the issue involved.

I do think you have to be very careful with labels like "mentally ill" and who gets to use these.

The CBS News National Report had reported that the Library of Congress's use of this tactic was something borrowed from behind the Iron Curtain. And, I do not mean the USSR of when the Berlin Wall fell but that of Stalin and his ilk. People like Stalin who trample all over human rights in the name of their usually very flawed view of Utopia.

The poor woman who had been a victim of the Library of Congress policy-- which they actually bragged was very effective-- had lost everything like her home and ability to earn a livelihood. Again, this was according to the CBS National News of around July 6, 1996. I would bet that she was quite messed up by this abuse of power.

[Will VDS]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

There are many many accidental shooting every year. We need control to help this horrible statistic come down.

Gun accidents happen because too many gun owners have no ability to do so.

Do you mean more government gun control , like FAST & FUROUS gun control, with no one held accountable when things go wrong, like when our own Border patrol agent got Murdered and nobody is man enough to step up and say they screwed up. yea that's are government in action, more controls HA.

[Cajulian]

[quote=buggyone;838489]

Originally Posted by Cajulian

Get your quotes right if you are going to quote someone. I said Legitimate NEED. Please play your semantics games with someone else. If you do not think I am right, so be it. 'Nuff said

Touchy, touchy!! Ok. So again, in your opinion, what would you consider "a legitimate NEED", for owning a gun?

I am not arguing for or against guns. I am just curious about your comment. Be polite now, I am being courteous to you. Thank you for your opinion.

[buggyone]

[quote=Cajulian;838964]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Touchy, touchy!! Ok. So again, in your opinion, what would you consider "a legitimate NEED", for owning a gun?

I am not arguing for or against guns. I am just curious about your comment. Be polite now, I am being courteous to you. Thank you for your opinion.

My opinion is that if that man did not have a loaded pistol unsecured in his house, his 8 year old nephew would still be alive. Ask the uncle, not me, what he now considers a legitimate need for having a loaded unsecured gun in the house. Ask the parents of the boy if the are in favor of having loaded unsecured guns in the house.

Ask them. Do not ask me.

[Dusty74]

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Dusty74

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

That's interesting. Do you have any more information about this case in California? I certainly do not think that only the "ins" should have the privilege of carrying concealed weapons. Would hope that extensive safety training would be required as well as a thorough objective evaluation of temperament and the like. I am more afraid of hotheads getting access to concealed weapon permits-- like the retired police officer near Tampa who shot the moviegoer over getting hit in the face with popcorn-- than of mentally ill people getting them. If you look at the statistics it is the mentally ill who are usually the victims of violence and not the perpetrators. There are the very violent criminals who are mentally ill or use the appearance of being mentally ill to conduct their heinous plans and possibly get away with such actions. Probably like the Aurora movie shooter who in my mind knew exactly what he was doing and that it was evil. There are legitimate cases of what looks like a seemingly good person going bad because of some tumor or a chemical imbalance in the brain like Charles Whitman, the U of Texas tower shooter who had some kind of brain tumor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Who would you rather have a gun-- the thugs who set some paranoid schizophrenic on fire for their amusement or the paranoid schizophrenic who more than probably not knows that he or she has mental problems and has probably worked hard for a cure? It is the thugs who probably try to act "normal" around others when they are not bullying people who cannot fight back. This link is for the UK but the same problem exists in the US-- http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02Februa...tack-risk.aspx

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Dusty74

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

No, I think it is wonderful that states such as Floriduh gives any yahoo a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Look at the prime examples set by the retired police captain who kills because he was upset over texting and our star example of police wannabee George Zimmerman.

We also have Villagers who carry pistols when visiting "impoverished" communties like Leesburg and Wildwood. They also want to shoot pursesnatchers in the back.

Yes, us commoners need them concealed weapon permits like those high falootin Hollywood people got. ( read sarcasm in there)

[Dusty74]

It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California, FOX News, Feb 13, 2014:
"Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.
In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the few lucky people getting permits are big donors to a sheriff’s re-election campaign or a sheriff’s personal friend. In other counties, such as Stanislaus County in northern California, the key to getting a permit seems to be either an influential politician or a prominent businessman.
Yet, in liberal California, the very people who need protection the most, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, have no chance of getting approved."

[2BNTV]

If they weren't able to change the gun laws after The Newton, CT tradegy, they never will.

I guess the NRA rules supreme!!!

Sadly, most murders happen between people who know each other. Scary!!!!!

Just ask Reeva. Oh wait she's dead, from Petorius bullets.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

If they weren't able to change the gun laws after The Newton, CT tradegy, they never will.

I guess the NRA rules supreme!!!

Sadly, most murders happen between people who know each other. Scary!!!!!

Just ask Reeva. Oh wait she's dead, from Petorius bullets.

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if things will not change with the gun laws. Stubborn very dedicated and connected people can work wonders, especially if they have a lot of help.

Gabby Giffords and her husband are such a team and if they keep bugging Congress they might really get some where. The problem seems to be that the Gun lobby and its supporters often couch the 2nd Amendment as a God- given right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers were often very noble, well-read and intelligent men who lived during an era when they had had Native American and other attacks near their homes. The Founding Fathers were not Gods though or like Moses and the Ten Commandments.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by buggyone

No, I think it is wonderful that states such as Floriduh gives any yahoo a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Look at the prime examples set by the retired police captain who kills because he was upset over texting and our star example of police wannabee George Zimmerman.

We also have Villagers who carry pistols when visiting "impoverished" communties like Leesburg and Wildwood. They also want to shoot pursesnatchers in the back.

Yes, us commoners need them concealed weapon permits like those high falootin Hollywood people got. ( read sarcasm in there)

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

[Cajulian]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

TexaninVa,

I need to warn you. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you favor, you will get a non-relevant answer to your questions. When people discuss serious topics with their emotions, they tend to get angry when asked about actual facts, generally because they can't support what they are saying.

Anyone who served our country and fought or died to protect our Constitution to enable the freedoms granted to all that live here, fully understand why it is utmost important to uphold the constitution and laws.

Our cities everywhere have become infested with crime and it has even crept into our smaller communities. For those naive enough to believe that crime can't happen to them, may someday be in for a rude awakening.

No SANE person with a license/permit to carry a firearm ever wants to use it to hurt another individual. The fastest growing population of concealed carry permits is now from women. I wonder why?

There are no winners in this discussion topic. There will never be agreement.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.

Ok Golfingnut and thanks ... waiting for Buggy's reply.