Belz...
Fiend God
Pie in the sky, as it often is. Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
Today's Mass Shooting
- Thread starter ponderingturtle
- Start date
- Status
Pie in the sky, as it often is. Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
I'll certainly agree that rural gun ownership and urban gun ownership is a divide that never gets addressed in this debate.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Yeah no. For starters, not many of these rabid gun nuts would actually be able to qualify for military service. And the military already has too much of a problem with white supremacist militias and criminal street gangs using it as a source of free combat training.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,901
No I'm saying all the armchair cowboys aren't going to put their money where their mouth is.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,353
It's possible there's some useful nugget of an idea in it. You could introduce restrictions but purchases "shall not be restricted" if you sign up as a reservist.
Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,439
How about a mandated, government funded (or at least subsidized) safety and education class before your first purchase? I know I've been shocked on a couple of occasions by the poor handling I've seen from people who weren't even the gung-ho Rambo types. And I remember when I took California's Basic Firearms Safety test there were a few questions with answers so clearly wrong that anyone who picked them should fail outright regardless of their overall score.
In the Walmart shooting the cops managed to detain the shooter without shooting at him, and i read that a "guy with a gun" in the parking lot was asked by the cops if he was the shooter. So it doesn't seem like they are always going to shoot anyone with a gun on sight.
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,122
Like most states in the South, it is legal for anyone who isn't crazy or a criminal to carry a loaded gun in their car. That means there is a good chance that someone in the parking lot with a gun was not necessarily the shooter.
plague311
Great minds think...
I'm a convicted felon and I can legally purchase, register and have a gun in North Dakota:
That seems extremely stupid to me.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Comparing the cops arresting the white shooter in TX to all the murdering of unarmed young black males, or young black males clearly fleeing, it's hard not to see such a stark difference.
My state requires a hunter education certificate before being issued a license to hunt with firearms. The certificate requires attending ten to 12 hours of class, passing a written test and demonstrating the ability to safely handle and shoot a firearm at the range. When I took the hunter safety course the median age of the students was around 8. Most of them managed to earn their certificate.
The hunter safety classes were started about 50 years ago. Before the classes were required the stare would typically have six or more fatal hunting accidents each year. The rate now is less than one a year.
Concealed carry training in my state is two or three hours of class time. There is no written test and no requirement to actually shooting a gun. No training is required if you just want to buy a firearm and play Rambo.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
There is currently a lawsuit in California over a new policy out of the AG's office - the AG determined that individuals with prior criminal convictions that have been vacated by a court and have had their firearm rights restored - including having waivers from ATF declaring they are not prohibited persons - can not purchase or possess firearms in California.
https://reason.com/2018/12/26/california-says-residents-with-vacated-o/
California Says Residents With Vacated Out-of-State Convictions May Not Own Guns
A federal lawsuit says the state is violating the Second Amendment by refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.
While serving in the U.S. Navy more than three decades ago, Chad Linton pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, and attempting to evade a police vehicle, a Class C felony, in Island County, Washington. More than four decades ago, when he was 18, Paul Stewart was found guilty of first-degree burglary, a felony, after hopping a fence and stealing tools from an unlocked telephone company truck in Yuma County, Arizona. In both cases, the felony convictions were eventually vacated, and both men's firearm rights were restored.
But not according to the state of California, where Linton and Stewart have long led law-abiding lives. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that their vacated felony convictions forever disqualify them from buying or possessing guns. Last week Linton and Stewart, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three other gun rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco, arguing that California's policy violates the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Link to the filing:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...4170/linton-complaint-exhibits.pdf?1545334170
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
What part is "extremely stupid"? The fact the law prohibits someone with a felony conviction from owning a gun for a decade, or that a felon is able to own a gun at all, ever?
Sure, felonies are serious. But I believe that people can reform and can change. As such I'm generally opposed to the idea that a criminal record, especially one picked up under the age of 25 for offenses short of rape and murder, should ruin a person for the rest of his/her life.
plague311
Great minds think...
I've never wanted a gun, before or after my felony (it happened when I was 18, I'm 38 now), so it hasn't come into play.
My felony isn't vacated or anything. Once you plead guilty in North Dakota there is really no way to expunge or remove the conviction like there is in most other states. Once you get it, it's there for life.
I don't see it as an infringement on my rights though. Probation was absolute hell. They could come in my apartment any time they want, I got my car searched every time I was pulled over, and sometimes got pulled over just for that. I had to pee in a cup at random, any time they felt like it, and the real kicker was that as a broke teenager I had to pay them money to be on probation. It was absolute horse ****.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
Notice it says that if the person has been convicted of violence or intimidation. If you've shown yourself to be violent then there should be several steps to getting your right to own a gun back. It doesn't say you need rehab (which your sentence probably does) or anything like that. If you spend time in prison, you don't HAVE to do rehab. It's optional.
I think it should take more than time to be considered healthy enough to own a gun, especially if you've been violent in the past. My felony was non violent and non drug related. So it doesn't really play into my situation.
As a person that's lived with it, I can honestly say that the part that sucks the most is putting in applications. I don't have to put it on any forms anymore (most request back 7 or 10 years, and mine is about 20), but that was the hardest to deal with.
That being said, I also agree people can reform and change, but to me there should be proof that you have done those things. Something more than "oh, a decade has passed. You're good." Mental health eval, something like that. I'm filming a youtube video of me, a felon, leisurely browsing and picking out a gun after openly saying I'm a felon. I really don't think it should be this way.
It's just a part of a general pattern of discriminating and undermining a minority that has no way of defending itself against anything but the most draconian of penalties.
Penalism populism can be a great way for politicians to gain support and notability, even if there's very little evidence to justify overly harsh prison sentences or draconian restrictions against current and past prisoners. The scum of the earth, dregs of society... No one wants to be seen as standing up for violent thugs, rapists and thieves so it's okay to beat up on them, even if you end up hurting yourself in the end.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
And given the extreme racial bias in policing and conviction rates in this country, it's also a good way to control an "undesirable" population and ensure that as many of their rights as possible are restricted.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
I saw a mention of that and thought, "Damn, he was one lucky sumbitch."
I also wondered exactly when it was, since it wasn't clear if the WalMart shooter had already been apprehended or not. At some point, early on, there was some question about whether there was more than one gunman.
And I didn't see any mention of his skin color, either. If he was white then the odds would have been much more in his favor.
- Status