http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26fri1.html?hp
The kindest thing that can be said about the NRA and its sympathizers is "They're Nuts!"
The kindest thing that can be said about the NRA and its sympathizers is "They're Nuts!"
Handguns for Eighteen-Year-Olds? - NRA
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Heeeeerrrrrrrrrreeeeeee's Colpy!
LOL!!!!!
Typing as we speak.......
Baloney....there are just so many things in that article that are absolute garbage.
Firsty of all, if you want strict gun control in the United States, then the ONLY way to legitimately pursue it is to support an amendment to the Constitution.........altering the Bill of Rights for the first time........good luck with that. (sarcasm alert)
Secondly, the DC gun ban was hardly "basic"........it was a gun law much stricter than ridiculous Canadian gun laws........one that had honest good people detail searching their pickups before they entered DC, as they could be jailed for having a fired empty cartridge case on board!!!!! It banned handguns, and required all weapons to be stored disassembled, and put semi-autos in the same class as machine guns. To have the idiots on the editorial board of the New York Times call these blatantly unconstitutional regulations "basic" reveals their absolute scorn of the Bill of Rights.......the scum.
Thirdly.....**** the FBI's terrorist watch list..........if they have not been convicted of anything and are US citizens, they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Depend on the leftist anti-gun blackshirts to support extra-judicial removal of basic rights without recourse or trial.......whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty???
Fourth....the Bill of Rights refers to the militia in the Second Amendment.......and the militia, according to the US Code,,,
If you are old enough to bear arms in defense of the state, you are old enough to bear arms in defense of yourself.....both with proper checks and training.......................
Fifth, those who are licensed or permitted to carry handguns concealed in the USA number in the millions............and the murder rate among them is a tiny fraction of the murder rate in the general population...............I'm gonna research the exact numbers and get back to this.....
It's not the NRA that is nuts.
Here you go:
Democratic Underground - CCW Holders have a homicide rate 87% LESS than the general public despite VPC claim. - Democratic Underground
Freedom is a wonderful thing.....such a shame Canadians are so frightened of it!
"both with proper checks and training"
^ That's the key right there.... and with proper background checks and proper training, I don't see why anybody can't own a firearm.....
..... but the problem with the above, as we discussed in other threads Colpy, is that making background checks and proper training a requirement before obtaining a firearm is an infringement in the right to bear arms..... and because, as you put it, it'd be highly unlikely anybody would allow any modification/amendment in that right, since nobody has been able to thus far..... the above won't work and thus, there will never be any form of solution or regulation into making sure only responsible people get firearms.
Members of the NRA and those whom are responsible with their firearms are indeed only a small % of the overall problem of gun related violence in the US...... but those who make up the remainder of the % of gun related problems in the US have no real control or regulation over them, which is why they make up that amount of the % of gun related crimes...... they are not responsible and they use their firearms to commit crimes, all the while they use the right to bear arms and arguments the NRA use as their defence and justification for the crimes they commit with their firearms.
No, that's not the NRA's fault for what these clowns do...... but in the end, there still isn't a solution to reducing the gun related crimes in the US, besides arresting the criminals after the fact or gunning them down during a crime in progress.
^ That's the key right there.... and with proper background checks and proper training, I don't see why anybody can't own a firearm.....
..... but the problem with the above, as we discussed in other threads Colpy, is that making background checks and proper training a requirement before obtaining a firearm is an infringement in the right to bear arms..... and because, as you put it, it'd be highly unlikely anybody would allow any modification/amendment in that right, since nobody has been able to thus far..... the above won't work and thus, there will never be any form of solution or regulation into making sure only responsible people get firearms.
Members of the NRA and those whom are responsible with their firearms are indeed only a small % of the overall problem of gun related violence in the US...... but those who make up the remainder of the % of gun related problems in the US have no real control or regulation over them, which is why they make up that amount of the % of gun related crimes...... they are not responsible and they use their firearms to commit crimes, all the while they use the right to bear arms and arguments the NRA use as their defence and justification for the crimes they commit with their firearms.
No, that's not the NRA's fault for what these clowns do...... but in the end, there still isn't a solution to reducing the gun related crimes in the US, besides arresting the criminals after the fact or gunning them down during a crime in progress.
BTW....that is four MILLION Americans that are members of the NRA, plus several times that number of sympathizers, that you are calling "nuts".
Maybe..........
Personally, I think they should leave 'em both alone.
Let's hear it for dope-smoking gun-toters!!!!!
Shooting guns would take too much effort when one is blazed, I would be more content sitting on the couch indulging in fattening good items methinks.
You can pass all the stupid anti gun laws you want but the simple fact is that criminals will find guns somehow and use them. All these ridiculous laws do is prevent the average law abiding citizen from having a tool.
I agree the system is broken somewhere between production and possession. Firearms should only find their way into the hands of trained, qualified and law abiding people. Age would be only one qualifying factor.
What is the minimum age in the US military?
Seventeen. In fact, ALL US citizens, age 17 to 45, are in the militia. See post number 3.
17 sounds reasonable, considering that at 18 they can legally kill people in a war zone. I fully support 17 year olds possessing a handgun, provided they've gone through checks, training and qualifying tests first.
If someone is carrying a firearm, the police should be able to demand the person produce identification like a driver's license which identifies the person as qualified to possess a firearm. If someone has a firearm and doesn't possess that ID, then they are busted.
If someone is carrying a firearm, the police should be able to demand the person produce identification like a driver's license which identifies the person as qualified to possess a firearm. If someone has a firearm and doesn't possess that ID, then they are busted.
In some states, all you have to do to buy a handgun is walk into a store with the cash and proof of residency.......the only laws are federal, which means the buyer undergoes a instant background check.......and has to be 21 to purchase from anyone that holds a federal firearms license.
However, if you are gifted with it, or buy it second hand, there obviously is no background check, and a number of states allow handgun possession at age 18. In Vermont, if you can legally own it (and you can at 18), then you can carry it loaded and concealed, no license required.
And it has not been a problem.
I am willing to compromise, though (lol, in Canada, RIGHT!) In most CCW states, a 12 hour course is required.......personally I think a license to carry should be issued after a careful background check, and a course in both self-defense law, safe firearms handling, and skill at arms.....say 40 hours. In other words, I think you should be licensed to carry if you can demonstrate the same knowledge and skill level expected of an average police constable.
Not that hard. Believe me, I know. I used to train people to carry handguns.