CCW

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504926
4 I utterly reject the notion we freely violate the rules of war. We should demand Congress declare war, a constitutional provision both parties have no problem ignoring. But we grant conventions protections to people who clearly are not covered because they themselves do not follow the rules established by the conventions.
Constitutionally congress is not required to declare a state of war exists. That just tells the world what is happening.
All congress has to do is appropriate funds for the war.
And to stop our actions in war all congress has to do is defund the war.

 

[darthtang aw]

That 2 bucks isn't going to make you any more secure either.  It's dropped down into the 20's here in San Antonio, and everyone is walking around with big heavy coats.  Weren't you the one bragging how you could pop as many shells off with your 9mm as someone with an AR?  Someone could stash at least two 9mm's in a big, heavy jacket, along with several clips.  Shoot, you could hide a Bushmaster or a TEC-9 in a long jacket.  So did these cops frisk you before walking into the theater?  Did you go through a metal detector?  Like I said, "false sense of security".
I was just making an observation. My point was a private corporation had on duty police officers. Why should we not demand no less than a a similar security precaution in our schools?
It is No more a false sense of security than the ban you support. So I ask you this, what exactly do you want?

 

[darthtang aw]

http://www.inquisitr.com/448340/gun-control-laws-texas-arm-the-teachers-school-policy-uses-concealed-carry-permit/

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505500
Constitutionally congress is not required to declare a state of war exists. That just tells the world what is happening.
All congress has to do is appropriate funds for the war.
And to stop our actions is war all congress has to do is defund the war.
Article 1 section 8 The Congress shall have the power........
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/40#post_3505498
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/roy_bragg/article/Do-gun-owners-see-things-more-clearly-4146741.php
Here's an interesting take on the gun debate:
The author is clueless.
Because guns aren't used for their "intended purpose" they are a waste? My AR is a "Match Target" model. What do you suppose it's intended use is? It has a 20" heavy barrel. That isn't what the cops or military carry. I have a Colt officer's target model pistol. Guess what that's made for? By the same token crazy glue was never intended to be super glue but it does work great for that purpose. Is that a waste?
According to FBI Statistics 96 percent of police officers have drawn their gun at least once a year. They have a badge and a gun. Most people wont challenge that. 59 percent have fired their weapon at least once during a "critical incident". So much for "most cops go their entire career without ever firing their weapon"

 

[meowzer]

 

[reefraff]

And the cheese cake of mass destruction.

 

[crimzy]

The issues of gun control / CCW's / armed guards in schools / assault rifles have been confused and commingled such that it's difficult to pick a side, unless your on the far left or far right end of the spectrum.
Regarding assault rifles and the 2nd amendment, I simply don't see a necessity for this item to legally on the market. All constitutional amendments are subject to restrictions and/or limitation, and the standard is whether the limitation or restriction of the right is necessary to further a compelling state interest. Even those on the far right would probably agree that people should not be able to go out and buy a grenade, rocket launcher, or nuclear weapon (unless you live in Syria). So we should all accept that the 2nd amendment is NOT unlimited.
That being said, the Supreme Court's job is to balance a person's autonomy to legally own an assault rifle vs. the country's interest in keeping them out of society. From a legal standpoint, if the nation's need to prevent access to these weapons is greater than the person's right to own one then the debate should end there and the Supreme Court will follow their obligations.
Personally, I don't equate the owning of an oozi with the intentions of the constitution. Clearly we are long gone from the days of packing gun powder in your musket for a minute or so before firing. Guns are each citizen's right, IMO, and nobody is going to take away my ability to protect my home and my family. However assault weapons are meant for mass destruction. I can't foresee a realistic situation where this is necessary. As such, I think that the nation's efforts to keep these weapons out of the hands of the unstable should outweigh the limitation on one's right to bear arms.
Finally, the constitution is not made to protect one's right to hunt. Hunting is no more a right than is throwing grenades at a watermelon for fun. If your perceived "right" to fire 100 rounds per minute at a duck is abridged, I can live with that too.
Just my (not so) humble opinion...

 

[reefraff]

Why single out "assault weapons"? There are things we allow that kills more people every year that firearms in general and a great many things that kill more people than "assault weapons". Year over year not that many people are killed by this type of gun.
It wouldn't be so bad if a ban would actually achieve anything but all it does is infringe on honest citizen's rights;

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505519
Why single out "assault weapons"? There are things we allow that kills more people every year that firearms in general and a great many things that kill more people than "assault weapons". Year over year not that many people are killed by this type of gun.
It wouldn't be so bad if a ban would actually achieve anything but all it does is infringe on honest citizen's rights;
Let's not confuse things where people do unhealthy / unsafe things to themselves (ie. your cheesecake example), with the threat of safety to others.
Your rights are abridged by the government when you get on an airplane, smoke a cigarrette (in most states), drink and drive, get pulled over by a police officer, etc. Can you give an example of something where people can use something to kill others, yet the individual rights remain intact without limitation? If you can, then I will pose the same argument to prohibit said conduct or item...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505520
Let's not confuse things where people do unhealthy / unsafe things to themselves (ie. your cheesecake example), with the threat of safety to others.
Your rights are abridged by the government when you get on an airplane, smoke a cigarrette (in most states), drink and drive, get pulled over by a police officer, etc. Can you give an example of something where people can use something to kill others, yet the individual rights remain intact without limitation? If you can, then I will pose the same argument to prohibit said conduct or item...
How many people die as a result of drunk driving each year? The number is more than the total number of people killed by guns of all types and that includes justifiable use of deadly force by both police and civilians. And what is the positive side of alcohol use other than it's tasty? On the other hand their are countless times guns are used for self defense every year. Even "assault weapons". Backyard swimming pools kill more kids each year than guns.
Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? He used diesel fuel and fertilizer. Any gun can be used. Remember Tucson? That was a pistol. Knives, bats, gasoline used for firebombs, cars have been used to kill people many times.
Just to add a little perspective
There are about 10,000 people killed in the US by guns of all types each year. 98,000 die of preventable medical errors.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505524
How many people die as a result of drunk driving each year? The number is more than the total number of people killed by guns of all types and that includes justifiable use of deadly force by both police and civilians. And what is the positive side of alcohol use other than it's tasty? On the other hand their are countless times guns are used for self defense every year. Even "assault weapons". Backyard swimming pools kill more kids each year than guns.
Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? He used diesel fuel and fertilizer. Any gun can be used. Remember Tucson? That was a pistol. Knives, bats, gasoline used for firebombs, cars have been used to kill people many times.
Just to add a little perspective
There are about 10,000 people killed in the US by guns of all types each year. 98,000 die of preventable medical errors.
Yes, and drunk driving is illegal.
Aside from that, I'm not seeing your point. Are you suggesting that people can die from a variety of causes so therefore assault weapons are necessary to own... (or some strange logic like that)?
If you accept the truth that all amendments are subject to limitation, (including the right to bear arms), then the only real debate about weapons is where you draw the line. Do you allow assault weapons, hand grenades, and/or really cool military tanks because they'd be fun to own?
Are you arguiing that the limiting or eliminating assault weapons from dangerous people is NOT a compelling national interest? Are you arguiing that your right to have such a cool GI Joe style toy outweighs the interest of keeping them out of the hands of the unstable individuals? Or finally, are you suggesting that an assault weapon is not inherently dangerous because of the vast number of medical errors in the US? (I sincerely hope you're not making the final argument as I may have to revisit my opinion of your intellect)...

 

[2quills]

What ever happened to gasoline and fertilizer after oklahoma city? Just currious.
I shutter to think of what an intelligent kid motivated to kill might do if guns were not a convenience for him. Take away all the guns you want. But if someone gets the urge to kill then what type of direction will people start taking then when the means to build explosives is really quite simple and the means to do so can be found just about anywhere?
I personally wouldn't lose sleep if they banned these semi automatic variants of assualt riffles. I haven't even shot mine in 3 1/2 years. I keep what I keep for home defense. Above and beyond that then they can do what they want. I can still pull a trigger on my pistol just as fast. This why the argument against what is already deemed legal that no one else is talking about makes very little sense.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505528
Yes, and drunk driving is illegal.
Aside from that, I'm not seeing your point. Are you suggesting that people can die from a variety of causes so therefore assault weapons are necessary to own... (or some strange logic like that)?
If you accept the truth that all amendments are subject to limitation, (including the right to bear arms), then the only real debate about weapons is where you draw the line. Do you allow assault weapons, hand grenades, and/or really cool military tanks because they'd be fun to own?
Are you arguiing that the limiting or eliminating assault weapons from dangerous people is NOT a compelling national interest? Are you arguiing that your right to have such a cool GI Joe style toy outweighs the interest of keeping them out of the hands of the unstable individuals? Or finally, are you suggesting that an assault weapon is not inherently dangerous because of the vast number of medical errors in the US? (I sincerely hope you're not making the final argument as I may have to revisit my opinion of your intellect)...
Taking any gun "casually" within 1000 feet of a school is also illegal. We see how well that law works. And our compelling national interest should be keeping any gun from dangerous people.
The point is if this was about saving lives there are way better places to start which will have far better results. But that isn't what this is about.
A very small amount of gun crime is committed with these weapons. Even if you could take each and every one off the street tomorrow you would still have gun crimes.
Every time someone is killed with one of these the media sensationalizes it yet there aren't that many incidents. Banning handguns would save many more lives because they are cheap and easy to conceal so criminals prefer them. But those who are out to ban private gun ownership know they have to do it in pieces so you have them playing on people's emotions to ban "Machine guns". Most people are ignorant as to the difference between what you can walk in and buy and a machine gun so it's an easy way to cloud the issue. Once they ban these they will move on to the next phase which will be handguns.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505510
The author is clueless.
Because guns aren't used for their "intended purpose" they are a waste? My AR is a "Match Target" model. What do you suppose it's intended use is? It has a 20" heavy barrel. That isn't what the cops or military carry. I have a Colt officer's target model pistol. Guess what that's made for? By the same token crazy glue was never intended to be super glue but it does work great for that purpose. Is that a waste?
According to FBI Statistics 96 percent of police officers have drawn their gun at least once a year. They have a badge and a gun. Most people wont challenge that. 59 percent have fired their weapon at least once during a "critical incident". So much for "most cops go their entire career without ever firing their weapon"
I know two San Antonio cops that have been on the force for over 15 years, and the only time they've pulled their weapon is at the shooting range. My cousin is a DPS Trooper, and he's never had to pull his weapon. Must be flawed FBI statistics.
So you're saying the several million weapons that are out there and owned by who knows who, are all used for their "intended purpose"? Riiiight. The PRIMARY purpose for a firearm is to KILL. You seem stuck on "killing" targets. Guess you're saying you could never use that "Match Target" AR as a weapon for self defense?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505550
I know two San Antonio cops that have been on the force for over 15 years, and the only time they've pulled their weapon is at the shooting range. My cousin is a DPS Trooper, and he's never had to pull his weapon. Must be flawed FBI statistics.
So you're saying the several million weapons that are out there and owned by who knows who, are all used for their "intended purpose"? Riiiight. The PRIMARY purpose for a firearm is to KILL. You seem stuck on "killing" targets. Guess you're saying you could never use that "Match Target" AR as a weapon for self defense?
The author is the one hung up on intended uses. Even if you buy a gun for the specific purpose of home defense a logical use for the gun is target shooting so you'll be able to hit what you aim at should you ever need it.
Where did I or anyone else say any gun can't kill? My gun was designed for target shooting. You saying that isn't a legitimate use for one?
And you know two cops who have never fired their guns. What about the hundreds of thousands of other cops out there, did you poll them?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505503
I was just making an observation. My point was a private corporation had on duty police officers. Why should we not demand no less than a a similar security precaution in our schools?
It is No more a false sense of security than the ban you support. So I ask you this, what exactly do you want?
I don't need some knee-jerk reaction by trying to arm schools because of this incident. If that were the case, why didn't the NRA et. al. get on this bandwagon after Columbine? It's pointless and a waste of money to try and stick police at every single school in this nation. If some nutbag wants to copy cat this latest tragedy, and there's a cop located at the school, the nutbag will simply target the cop first. As I've already stated, the size and design of most schools makes it difficult if not impossible for one police officer to cover the premises on his/her own. If they're on one side of the school, the assailant can simply come in from the other side.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505553
I don't need some knee-jerk reaction by trying to arm schools because of this incident. If that were the case, why didn't the NRA et. al. get on this bandwagon after Columbine? It's pointless and a waste of money to try and stick police at every single school in this nation. If some nutbag wants to copy cat this latest tragedy, and there's a cop located at the school, the nutbag will simply target the cop first. As I've already stated, the size and design of most schools makes it difficult if not impossible for one police officer to cover the premises on his/her own. If they're on one side of the school, the assailant can simply come in from the other side.
And I don't need a knee-jerk reaction by trying to ban a certain style of gun because of this incident. It's pointless unless you are going to ban and confiscate all guns because the next wacko will use a different style of gun, then we can ban those until we can't own anything, which is underlying motive here anyway.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505552
The author is the one hung up on intended uses. Even if you buy a gun for the specific purpose of home defense a logical use for the gun is target shooting so you'll be able to hit what you aim at should you ever need it.
Where did I or anyone else say any gun can't kill? My gun was designed for target shooting. You saying that isn't a legitimate use for one?
And you know two cops who have never fired their guns. What about the hundreds of thousands of other cops out there, did you poll them?
His observations were spot on. He didn't state any specific intended use. He called them "killing devices". Isn't your target toys "killing devices"? He even stated that he was excluding hunters. He said that if people wanted to waste their money shooting guns at useless targets, it was their right.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505557
His observations were spot on. He didn't state any specific intended use. He called them "killing devices". Isn't your target toys "killing devices"? He even stated that he was excluding hunters. He said that if people wanted to waste their money shooting guns at useless targets, it was their right.
Bionic, I read the article and also disagreed with the author because he completely neglected the use of guns in one's home to protect self and family. His argument focused on crime in the streets, and ignored the primary purpose for most people to own guns. And even if his point were that the instances of such crimes are pretty remote, that is not a compelling argument to suggest that one should not have the ability to defend him/herself should this remote instance occur.
I'm sure his opinion would be different if someone were breaking into his home and he was looking for the nearest candle stick to use to protect his family...