Need a concealed carry permit to open carry?

[Aerik]

Just a few things...

First' date=' RVT's argument is one of elitism. I'm not saying he's an elitist... not in any way. I'm simply saying that trying to identify who can/cannot, should/should not own or carry a firearm is an egregious error in trying to decide who is worthy of self-defense, and who is not. [b']Mental sanity aside. SAT scores aside. Social affiliations aside. Every person on this rock possesses the right to self preservation without the interference of a governing body of any kind.

Second, I read in one of RVT's posts that the right to self-defense is granted by the government. I must insist that point be reevaluated. Nowhere in the founding documents does it say the right to self-defense is granted by any governing body. The founding documents outline what is protected, what is "hands off!!" material, from the government.

Just a little point-- mental sanity certainly doesn't remove their right to self-defense or self-preservation, but I think we could make an argument that giving firearms to seriously-stark-staring-pure-bugfuck-paranoid-crazies only increases the danger to them and anyone within range. That, to me, is a case in which there is certainly a need for some kind of government interference.

And probably the same for convicted violent criminals, too. Self preservation, sure; a rifle, maybe not.

But those are about the only restrictions on ownership of most small arms I could really support.

[chevysoldier]

Just a little point-- mental sanity certainly doesn't remove their right to self-defense or self-preservation, but I think we could make an argument that giving firearms to seriously-stark-staring-pure-bugfuck-paranoid-crazies only increases the danger to them and anyone within range. That, to me, is a case in which there is certainly a need for some kind of government interference.

And probably the same for convicted violent criminals, too. Self preservation, sure; a rifle, maybe not.

But those are about the only restrictions on ownership of most small arms I could really support.

These are the federal restrictions set forth:

The following groups of people are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 [1].

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors

Fugitives from justice

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

Illegal Aliens

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship

Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

Persons subject to a restraining order

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

You are innocent until proven [mentally incompetent or a felon].

[chevysoldier]

You know I totally agree with you on that IP. The "no gun" sign keeps you and I out of the store. It won't stop the robber. This is why the restaurant bill needs to take effect already.

[kawi kid]

wait so you mean that since i own a hammer that dont make me a carpenter?

[chevysoldier]

It's "you and me"' date=' btw.

I'm in a very small minority regarding my opinions on gun control. I don't believe there should be any exception to the rules. Everyone that is deemed competent to live among civil society should not be restricted concerning firearms. A gun is no more dangerous than a car, motorcycle, kitchen knife, bully pulpit in a Baptist church...etc. The tool does not create the killer, psycho, nutjob... whatever. If a person is found to be "reasonably" incapable of being responsible enough to own a gun without randomly shooting folks then what is that person doing in civilization to begin with?[/quote']

Yes, yes. "You and me" "by the way"...

I do agree with you.

[Aerik]

Gun control is a delusion. It's fantasy. Creating stipulations' date=' such as restricting access to guns for felons, only disarms those that decide to obey the law. The people that are purposefully, consciously, and voluntarily obeying the law aren't the folks that need a gun withheld from them. It almost sounds cliché, but criminals don't care about restrictions.[/quote']

It's true that criminals don't care about restrictions, but the restrictions do let the court recognize and attempt to address recidivism among certain types of criminals. There's also the increased chance of catching them (during a traffic stop, tip from parole officer, or the like) before they've actually caused any harm. If they were allowed to carry, then we couldn't do anything until after they went back out and shot the Quick-E-Mart clerk. As it is, they can be sent back for violating the rule, possibly before anyone else gets hurt-- a consequence of committing some crimes is that you give up some of your rights. If they were so trustworthy, they wouldn't be convicted violent criminals.

And there are some people who have been adjudicated mentally ill but are able to function (with considerable assistance) in society. The problem is that these people can go from barely-functional to extremely dangerous in the space of one forgotten medication. In these (admittedly fairly rare) cases, I'd just as soon have the legal means of obtaining a gun closed off to them. Some of them may be able to get them illegally, but others won't. And the delay of having to hunt for one is just more time in which their friends, family, social workers, or whoever may be able to defuse the situation.

We can't just keep some people locked up because they might break the law. We also can't ignore that there are some members of society who are at an extremely high risk of harming others, either through a proven history of such behaviors or by a legal and clinical judgment.

No, gun ownership restrictions are certainly not perfect solutions, but they are attempts to deal with some very real problems. Until a better solution is found, I can't really oppose them in these limited circumstances.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Aerik

[Disclaimer]

wait so you mean that since i own a hammer that dont make me a carpenter?

Jesus owned a hammer.

[Uncle Punk]

It's true that criminals don't care about restrictions, but the restrictions do let the court recognize and attempt to address recidivism among certain types of criminals. There's also the increased chance of catching them (during a traffic stop, tip from parole officer, or the like) before they've actually caused any harm. If they were allowed to carry, then we couldn't do anything until after they went back out and shot the Quick-E-Mart clerk. As it is, they can be sent back for violating the rule, possibly before anyone else gets hurt-- a consequence of committing some crimes is that you give up some of your rights. If they were so trustworthy, they wouldn't be convicted violent criminals.

And there are some people who have been adjudicated mentally ill but are able to function (with considerable assistance) in society. The problem is that these people can go from barely-functional to extremely dangerous in the space of one forgotten medication. In these (admittedly fairly rare) cases, I'd just as soon have the legal means of obtaining a gun closed off to them. Some of them may be able to get them illegally, but others won't. And the delay of having to hunt for one is just more time in which their friends, family, social workers, or whoever may be able to defuse the situation.

We can't just keep some people locked up because they might break the law. We also can't ignore that there are some members of society who are at an extremely high risk of harming others, either through a proven history of such behaviors or by a legal and clinical judgment.

No, gun ownership restrictions are certainly not perfect solutions, but they are attempts to deal with some very real problems. Until a better solution is found, I can't really oppose them in these limited circumstances.

I really don't like the federal guidelines at all especially the any felonies or some misdemeanors. A non violent felony without the use of a gun shouldn't deem you unworthy of self defense. I would even allow convicted violent felons who used a gun posses a firearm after a certain time frame of punishment, if they have done their time and paid their debt why keep punishing them. A mistake made at 20 is not the same mistake someone with a family will make at 40, why punish a family by not allowing firearms in the residence? Not all mental illnesses are created equal and shouldn't be judged as so, if you have a grasp of reality and just happen to have some depression how are you a threat to others? I don't have an issue with people who have a mental defect and don't have a grasp of reality being regulated but it should be a very hard state to prove. There are people who don't grasp others views and want to live in a world that they see or people who cling to unrealistic conspiracy theories are they mentally defective? I hate the fact we have allowed the mass of illegal aliens here but I don't find any human should be denied self defense, it's not a government given right to just U.S. citizens it's a God given birth right. I would like to see the illegal’s punished but their crime doesn't warrant death by stripping their ability to protect themselves. The dishonorably discharged should meet a predetermined punishment phase and then be allowed to defend him and his family, see felon comments above. Does anyone believe that the Vermont sixteen year olds are better qualified than the rest of the sixteen year olds? This sounds like a stupid political move to get favoritism or make a bill pass. The restraining order rule is complete bullshit because these restraining orders can be filed by complete idiots as a means to punish someone who isn't a threat. If you want to make it a 2,000 foot rule fine but not the next county over. I also think the domestic violence rule is complete bullshit, if I get into a fight with my brother at 20 should that really mean I lose the right to protect my family at 40? If I had to defend myself from a drunken spouse and got the better of them because they were drunk should I be punished forever once I have left that situation or have started another family?

Set a timeframe for punishment; once that debt has been paid remove the restrictions. No crime should have a permanent sentence if you are eligible to get out of jail, especially one that involves yourself preservation. We can debate what crimes should keep you in jail permanently but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

[kawi kid]

Jesus owned a hammer.

so if i own a hammer im christ?

[Aerik]

Right' date=' but now you aren't being very liberal. How does restricting the rights of someone who "may potentially break the law" settle with your political views? What you're teetering on the fence about is "Thought Crime". How do you, as a liberal, reconcile with that?[/quote']

I had a really long, well thought-out response to this that got lost when the page got crashed last night. It's early and I'm not awake yet, so I'm not gonna bother with trying to remember all of it.

Basically, though, no 'pure' ideology ever seems to work alone in practice. So, I have no problems if an idea which seems to work doesn't fit well within my broader liberal mindset. I'm a pragmatist at heart, I guess-- if it works for me and my country, I don't really care who thought it up or what it's called.

This country has always tried to balance between the capitalistic (our general economic system) and the socialistic (the roads, schools, and other infrastructure that support it). Sometimes the balance has been off a bit one way or the other, but we've always tried to pick and choose the best from both ideologies, and that's fine with me.

And just like we tend to balance our ideological views, we also have other forms of balance in our society. We try to balance the need for economic freedom against our prevailing sense of ethics. We try to balance security against civil liberties.

This balance, in particular, is very hard to maintain-- how far is too far? How free can we afford to let someone with a history of dangerous behaviors be? There is no perfect answer. All we can do is keep trying to evaluate and adjust that balance, based on the best information we can get. We have to keep the debate running constantly, and be willing to change our policy if we stumble onto a better idea. Like I said before, I don't claim that restricting their gun ownership is the perfect solution; rather, it's a relatively simple measure that we can take to try and address repeat offenders and the like while minimizing the impact on other citizens.

Regarding your point about Thought Crime, I think the difference for me is that buying a gun after you're told not to is an action, not a thought.

Rob a bank, do the time, and get out. Walk around all day thinking about robbing banks, and you haven't hurt anyone. Buy a gun and get caught with it, and you've taken a deliberate step toward repeating your old pattern of behavior.

It could be that getting caught and sent back prevented him from taking the next step. If he knew the rules and broke them, I'm okay with this.

I really don't like the federal guidelines at all especially the any felonies or some misdemeanors. A non violent felony without the use of a gun shouldn't deem you unworthy of self defense. I would even allow convicted violent felons who used a gun posses a firearm after a certain time frame of punishment, if they have done their time and paid their debt why keep punishing them. A mistake made at 20 is not the same mistake someone with a family will make at 40, why punish a family by not allowing firearms in the residence? Not all mental illnesses are created equal and shouldn't be judged as so, if you have a grasp of reality and just happen to have some depression how are you a threat to others? I don't have an issue with people who have a mental defect and don't have a grasp of reality being regulated but it should be a very hard state to prove. There are people who don't grasp others views and want to live in a world that they see or people who cling to unrealistic conspiracy theories are they mentally defective? I hate the fact we have allowed the mass of illegal aliens here but I don't find any human should be denied self defense, it's not a government given right to just U.S. citizens it's a God given birth right. I would like to see the illegal’s punished but their crime doesn't warrant death by stripping their ability to protect themselves. The dishonorably discharged should meet a predetermined punishment phase and then be allowed to defend him and his family, see felon comments above. Does anyone believe that the Vermont sixteen year olds are better qualified than the rest of the sixteen year olds? This sounds like a stupid political move to get favoritism or make a bill pass. The restraining order rule is complete bullshit because these restraining orders can be filed by complete idiots as a means to punish someone who isn't a threat. If you want to make it a 2,000 foot rule fine but not the next county over. I also think the domestic violence rule is complete bullshit, if I get into a fight with my brother at 20 should that really mean I lose the right to protect my family at 40? If I had to defend myself from a drunken spouse and got the better of them because they were drunk should I be punished forever once I have left that situation or have started another family?

Set a timeframe for punishment; once that debt has been paid remove the restrictions. No crime should have a permanent sentence if you are eligible to get out of jail, especially one that involves yourself preservation. We can debate what crimes should keep you in jail permanently but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

I'm not really opposed to your idea of a time limit. If we could identify the main time frame within which repeat offenses normally occur, and set the limit outside that, I think it would be fair enough.

And you're right that not all mental illnesses are created equal. I don't have the time to hunt for details at the moment, but I'm fairly certain there are some pretty specific criteria for what qualifies as 'dangerous'. If there aren't, I'd definitely support a revision on that part.

[r1crusher]

Jesus owned a hammer.

Only Satan himself would know that.

[RVTPilot]

Just a few things...

First' date=' RVT's argument is one of elitism. I'm not saying he's an elitist... not in any way. I'm simply saying that trying to identify who can/cannot, should/should not own or carry a firearm is an egregious error in trying to decide who is worthy of self-defense, and who is not. Mental sanity aside. SAT scores aside. Social affiliations aside. Every person on this rock possesses the right to self preservation without the interference of a governing body of any kind.

Second, I read in one of RVT's posts that the right to self-defense is granted by the government. I must insist that point be reevaluated. Nowhere in the founding documents does it say the right to self-defense is granted by any governing body. The founding documents outline what is protected, what is "hands off!!" material, from the government.[/quote']

Hoo boy. I haven't had any coffee yet, so consider that as you read this. First, I am glad Pauly chimed in. First, he's right in that I am not an elitist. There's no way I could be in this tax bracket. But he's correct that the viewpoint could be construed as such. Not where I was coming from or where I was necessarily going, but it does have that aroma.

True, we each have our right to self preservation simply by way of existence. Still, I am of the opinion that not every person born into this world or nation is fit to carry a firearm. Period. Should that preclude others from carrying one as a means of protections? Absolutely not. I just shudder at the idea of using an after-the-fact system as a means of weeding out those obviously not capable of carrying one. Irresponsible gun ownership isn't a problem until it is, and at that point, you aren't able to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

And that really is the crux of my argument. I simply want to see an attempt by both the government and the pro-gun faction of this country to establish some minimum standards of practice. I think lost in my wordy explanations previous to this (which I haven't the energy to go back and weed through) is that because of my convictions of responsible ownership I would want others to have to go without. Not the case at all. But the ability to carry a firearm into any public venue carries with it a grand responsibility that I don't think is appreciated when someone says "well, they should be able to simply because they are an American". I am not saying you have to score a 1600 on the SAT or be a card carrying member of MENSA. But invest some of yourself into the means by which you are chosing to defend yourself, and exhibit a sense of responsibility to the rest of who don't mind your choice so long as there is an understanding (by way of clearly stated and simplified laws or standards) that you know what the hell you are doing. And to sit back and say "hey, the criminals don't do that, why should I?" makes one more like the crimianls, and less like the rest of society. My disdain with this attitude (which I would agree is probably the minority of gun ownership, but I have seen it myself) is the hypocritical lack of respect they have for anyone else's rights other than their own. And that is as elitist as they come.

You want to know what my single greatest concern is? Its not the psycopath carrying a gun. True crazies will kill you in some other fashion. (How many bullets were found in Jeffrey Dahlmer's victims, for example?) No, my concen is the meek, limp wristed waif of a person, male or female, that decides to protect themselves with a gun (which is their right) and when a time comes where they feel it necessary to defend themselves, haven't invested into how that gun works, how to safely carry it, or what its potential is for damage and they hurt themselves or someone else that are not part of the percieved threat. That is what I fear most. But if a lot of gun owners would have it, they don't want mandatory saety training for owners, they don't want to have to justify to anyone that they know what they are doing. I'm not saying a citizen needs to go through bootcamp to carry a gun, but sit through a class and learn the proper way to handle a gun. Learn the true meaning of terms like muzzle velocity, maximum effective range, condition 1, etc. Understand the physical differences between calibers of ammunition before and after the hammer falls. As motorcyclists, we encourage energetic new enthusiasts to take the MSF course. Be responsible to your community and for yourself on a motorcycle. Why then would we not want our fellow countrymen to exercise the same discretion with something a tad more lethal? That's all. Be responsible. I don't think asking someone to be responsbile with a firearm infringes on their right to carry it. I think not being a responsible gun owner infringes on the rights of everyone else around them.

[Uncle Punk]

You are correct about your views smelling of an elitist superiority. You have had training with using firearms and somehow feel everyone else should have training even though you say you don’t expect folks to need boot camp training.

The thought police don’t regulate the citizens of Alaska or Vermont, they have no mandatory training other than needing to meet the federal guidelines for dispositions and anyone can carry a firearm. Arizona has passed such a law and other states have them in committees. You shudder to think of such an after the fact system so how can you justify your viewpoint when these states have little problems with these lacks of laws that aren’t ambiguous? I find that the areas with the most regulations to be where the citizens are most at risk. Do you think the people in those areas are defective or do you think the regulations have had unintended consequences? If you can show me an instance where your thought police system works you might have an argument but at this point it’s just your feelings on the subject and laws shouldn’t be implemented for feeling unless they suffer from unintended consequences. If you can find a place where your idea works you will need to make a case for why Alaska and Vermont’s don’t.

One’s actions make one more like the criminals not the possession of a tool. I carried plenty of times without a license so I am a criminal? I harmed no one; no one was at risk unless they were a criminal trying to harm me. How can you possibly call me more like a criminal simply because I chose to carry protection? Criminals have made a willful conscious decision to cause harm; I have done no such thing and resent the implication of being similar to them. If you want to call me an elitist because I value and am responsible for my personal protection then I am guilty as charged. I would think that anyone alive should be considered and elitist by that measure. The act of protecting oneself is not disrespecting others and I fail to see how you can come to such a conclusion. Millions of people have a means to protect themselves and yet it doesn’t affect anyone else’s rights.

The thought of possessing a firearm is comforting to people weather they are capable of using it or not, why take that away from them? Most of us have the physical tools to defend ourselves from an unarmed attacker but don’t take the time or opportunity to learn how to do it. A woman has the ability to bite off body parts and gouge out an eye if they are being raped but can’t bring themselves to such barbaric acts. Those people aren’t the ones who will be wielding a firearm around either. I think you don’t have enough faith in others ability to recognize their limitations.

I absolutely don’t want mandatory safety training; the physical handling of a firearm is simple, in fact less complicated than some power tools. We don’t have mandatory training for every tool simple because of its ability to cause harm. Intent is what you want to regulate and we can’t regulate thoughts. I know the true meaning of muzzle velocity, sustained cyclic rate of fire, maximum effective range, all the carrying conditions and most of the common calibers and find very little value to that information when I simply want to be able to protect myself. That knowledge is not needed when you are being attacked and you want to protect yourself. I find it to be elitist to think everyone else needs to have all that information simply for self defense.

I never took any MSF course to ride a motorcycle and I think I rode just fine, the physical operation of a motorcycle is more complicated that a firearm. I guess I have much more faith in my fellow human’s ability to understand how to be responsible without needing a nanny state to guide them in any decision they make. I do acknowledge we have people who know how to take advantage of others and they are the reason for law enforcement. Help is not always available so I take my protection as a task I am responsible for as I think everyone else should.

I have continued my education with firearms and motorcycles beyond what I could have taught myself but I don’t think everyone needs to spend their energies to have the same knowledge I have to be able to defend themselves or enjoy riding, that would be elitist.

[chevysoldier]

I can'e believe this got back on topic. I really want to read all the posts, but I am at work and don't have time.

[Uncle Punk]

You don't have the time because the idiots posting can't keep from writing 10,000 word essays. Doesn't anyone work?

[jbot]

what do YOU mean, "you people"?

[chevysoldier]

You don't have the time because the idiots posting can't keep from writing 10,000 word essays. Doesn't anyone work?

[RVTPilot]

I am working, or by now you would have gotten my dissertation of a response to your latest diatribe. Babies in my house need fed, amigo.

[Uncle Punk]

"You people" make me mad!

[RVTPilot]

Don't get mad. Only dogs get mad. People get angry. Even "you pepole" should only get angry.

[jbot]

[jporter12]

what do YOU mean, "you people"?

If you have to ask...

[jbot]

it was my way of saying "kettle calling pot, black tod"

thanks for ruining it! JERK

[Uncle Punk]

I win, I think Steve has surrendered or butt hurt.

[max power]

I can'e believe this got back on topic. I really want to read all the posts, but I am at work and don't have time.

:lol:Hilarious!