^^
So when is enough enough, then? What are the things that we're allowed to have that the gov't shouldn't make us get a license for? Why should they limit one more thing?

5/4/2009 2:11:10 PM

because you may decide to take up arms against the LIBERAL socialist gov't run by the democrats or you may need an assault rifle to repel a gang of minorities trying to pillage your house and rape your daughters.

(hate being last post on page)

5/4/2009 2:30:38 PM

^^ I dunno, honestly. You're answering a question with a question. I'm trying to figure out why its unreasonable to regulate hand guns, but reasonable to regulate those other things.

5/4/2009 3:48:45 PM

I was just playing devil's advocate.

One person can look at a long list of things that are regulated and say "Why not something else?" while another person can look at the same list and say "Why anything else"?

5/4/2009 4:07:09 PM

I'd say you can regulate guns as much as you regulate free speech.

5/4/2009 4:10:42 PM

I see no problem with requiring a 3-day waiting period to buy a handgun. If you have legal intentions than whats the problem. If you really really need a handgun today to off your cheating wife or lead to your revolution against the man than i'm sure you can get a handgun SOME how like every other gangster/criminal/felon who manages to pack heat without going through the normal legal channels.

I don't see my contractor screaming "dey tuk err building rights" b.c he has to file paper work and wait for approval from the municipal gov't before making improvements to my land.

5/4/2009 4:13:54 PM

No where in the constitution does it state you have a right to build what you want where you want.

It does, however, guarantee you the right to bear arms. Perhapse the government should have a background check on a free speech permit so it can make sure unsavory elements aren't allowed to just say what they want.

Out of curiosity, why are you for a handgun permit? Does it make you feel safer?

5/4/2009 4:27:56 PM

Actually I think it would better if these regulations were passed at teh state level. 10th amendment for the winz.

If the libbies in California want to ban handguns let them do the crying when Senator Bob's wife and daughter get gang banged by some maurading thugs; who have guns illegally.

This way Billy Bob can't cry 2nd amendment when Alabama decides to pass some reasonable gun control laws like a ban on a fully auto M249.

Quote :

"Out of curiosity, why are you for a handgun permit? Does it make you feel safer?"

I could ask you the same question. What concerns you about a handgun permit? Are you planning to go rob a bank right now?
What do you need your glock today for that you could not wait 3 days....

I am fairly supportive of gun rights but cut me a fucking breaking with the "OBAMA TUK MY 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS To pUT a .50 CALIBRE
Machine gun battery in my front lawn!!!"

I think its funny that the republican conservative base will ignore/overlook if their Republican president pisses all over the rest of the constitution but mention any kinda regulation (no matter how big or small)
and you'd think the 3rd Reich had taken over from all the bitching and whining about civil liberties.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : aa]

5/4/2009 4:33:14 PM

Quote :

"It does, however, guarantee you the right to bear arms. Perhapse the government should have a background check on a free speech permit so it can make sure unsavory elements aren't allowed to just say what they want."

You do need a permit to form a public protest. Some unsavory demonstrations are, in-fact, denied a permit.

5/4/2009 4:43:08 PM

What I was getting at is the akin to the null hypothesis. If the regulation wasn't there to begin with, what is facilitating its need? The people who are against the additional regulation are not at the burden of proving why it should not be there.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : it's]

5/4/2009 4:45:13 PM

Quote :

"If the regulation wasn't there to begin with, what is facilitating its need?"

and round and round we go.

5/4/2009 4:52:09 PM

5/4/2009 4:55:46 PM

Quote :

"I could ask you the same question. What concerns you about a handgun permit? Are you planning to go rob a bank right now? What do you need your glock today for that you could not wait 3 days.... "

No actually, you cant ask me the same question. Gun rights are guaranteed by the second ammendment. The first ammendment guarantees your right from government censorship while posting on the internet. Should you have to have a permit and wait 3 days to speak your mind? You're not going to talk about killing the president are you? You're not going to bomb some place, so why worry about it?

For the record I'm not worried about obama "takin mah gunz". I've never owned a gun and i dont really have any reason to. Im arguing on principle here. Im not a fan of the idea that you can restrict a civil liberty under the banner of public safety.

Quote :

"You do need a permit to form a public protest. Some unsavory demonstrations are, in-fact, denied a permit."

Those permits are for use of public property. They exist to ensure fair use of property. There is no permit required to speak your mind elsewhere. Also, denying someone a permit for a public demonstration is just as wrong.

And all these arguments are irrelevent since criminals, by nature, dont obey the law. Then you have cases like the VT shootings where the guy was able to get a gun because the background check doesn't find crazy. These laws seem ineffective and at the same time unconstitutional.

5/4/2009 5:05:46 PM

Quote :

"No actually, you cant ask me the same question. Gun rights are guaranteed by the second amendment. The first amendment guarantees your right from government censorship while posting on the internet. Should you have to have a permit and wait 3 days to speak your mind?"

You obviously lack any kind of rational logical thinking skill\ if you can't understand why our government treats our guns versus my ability to pray at a christian
church one week and an Islamic masque the next.

If you really want to get into it; I can not yell "FUCK" over a broadcast radio. WHAT THE HELL. This is my 1st amendment right. If only
the founding fathers had the foresight to imagine the world of the automobile. Since I think the gov't infringes on my right to drive a car
by making me hit up the DMV, register my vehicle, and ruining my liberty to pursue happiness by taking my drivers license after my 2nd DUI.

I'll be seriously pissed off if concealed carry or firearms are banned; since this is unlikely I can live with the current status
quo. Maybe I’ll sue my employer tomorrow since they infringe on my 2nd amendment rights to bring my .12 gauge shotgun to work.

Quote :

"Then you have cases like the VT shootings where the guy was able to get a gun because the background check doesn't find crazy. "

You are right but this does not give rationalization to completely eliminate any kind of filter or restriction. Requiring a drivers licensed does
not necessarily prevent unlicensed people from driving or that those licensed will be good drivers or not drive drunk......

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : q]

5/4/2009 5:26:00 PM

Quote :

"If you really want to get into it; I can not yell "FUCK" over a broadcast radio. WHAT THE HELL. This is my 1st amendment right. "

The FCC is the worst part of our government bar none. The ammount of censorship and control they have is the result of morality based legistlation that should be abolished.

Quote :

"If only the founding fathers had the foresight to imagine the world of the automobile. Since I think the gov't infringes on my right to drive a car by making me hit up the DMV, register my vehicle, and ruining my liberty to pursue happiness by taking my drivers license after my 2nd DUI."

Driving is not a right, its a privledge.

5/4/2009 5:29:41 PM

Quote :

"You are right but this does not give rationalization to completely eliminate any kind of filter or restriction. Requiring a drivers licensed does not necessarily prevent unlicensed people from driving or that those licensed will be good drivers or not drive drunk......"

Thats a good point i suppose. If everyone had to take a standard course on how to safely handle, maintain, and store their guns I might be able to get behind that. The problem I have is with arbitrary shit like "heh wait 3 days for no good reason"

5/4/2009 5:33:49 PM

What about laws about preventing those with mental illness or a convicted violent offender from going in to buy a new glock??

Quote :

"3 days for no good reason"

I think the 3 days thing is merely to prevent the

"Roger McDouche just kicked my ass; i'm going to go to walmart get a gun and show him whose boss."

Although I guess you could still do this if you already had a gun.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : aa]

5/4/2009 5:36:21 PM

Or if you have a knife or a shovel or any number of things you can use as a weapon. If someone wants to kill someone they're going to make it happen.

As to the mentally ill, the VT dude was mentally ill but his health records were private and not part of the background check.

As to felons owning guns, they served their time. If their time in jail didn't correct their behavior, then the corrections system needs to be reexamined.

5/4/2009 5:43:24 PM

fff

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : fff]

5/4/2009 5:45:14 PM

fff

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : fff]

5/4/2009 5:45:14 PM

Tripple postin itt.

My basic view is this: Any law that infringes on any rights guaranteed by the constition is wrong. And doubly so when the law is an ineffective one.

5/4/2009 5:47:34 PM

Quote :

"What I was getting at is the akin to the null hypothesis. If the regulation wasn't there to begin with, what is facilitating its need? The people who are against the additional regulation are not at the burden of proving why it should not be there."

Not simply that, but does the proposed regulation actually produce a measurably effective outcome? In other words, p-value; if it produces no measurable increase in safety (i.e., circumvented), then there is no good reason to adopt it, regardless. Hence you are correct about the null hypothesis - it's the benchmark any new regulation should be measured against.

5/4/2009 6:34:21 PM

Its my right as an amurican for me, my son, my woman, and my granchildren to have each of these!!!! yeeehaawww!!!








Gotta bare arms to fight the new revolution, shoot illegals hoppin the fence, fully auto capability to shoot Bambi when i hunt, and blow up minorities trying to steal my truck

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.shortage/index.html

Quote :

"Two weeks ago, The Firing Line was forced to impose a four-box-per-customer limit on ammo. Before that, the shop was selling 10,000 rounds of 9 mm handgun ammunition a day."

Quote :

"Gun shops across the country are reporting a run on ammunition, a phenomenon apparently driven by fear that the Obama administration will increase taxes on bullets or enact new gun-control measures."

would it not be ironic if ammo companies donated money to the OBama campaign in hopes of profiting off of Red America's fear that Obama is going to take our Gunz!

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 7:56 PM. Reason : l]

5/4/2009 7:44:20 PM

Quote :

"Fucking Liberals its my dam right as a Amurican to own me a M60 Light Machine Gun"

You can own an M60 if you take the proper legal steps. Better start saving your allowance, though...it would be more expensive than you could imagine (and also very expensive to shoot). The dollars are far more prohibitive than the law.

Quote :

"Well, we already need their permission to: Drive a car Fly a Plane Buy Alcohol Own/Hunt/Kill certain animals Get married Adopt a child Build a big fire Launch an object into high altitude Erect a building Stage a protest"

Most of those aren't regulated by the federal gov't. They're regulated by state or local gov't.

Quote :

" I'm trying to figure out why its unreasonable to regulate hand guns, but reasonable to regulate those other things."

Well, first of all, most of us who don't like heavyhanded regulation of guns don't like heavyhanded regulation of most other things.

Second, gun ownership is constitutionally protected. Building a big fire, for example, is not.

Also, you can drive a car all you want without permission...it's driving it on public roads that you have to play by their rules with. Flying a plane? You can fly an ultralight w/o clearing it with anyone. A no-kidding airplane? You have to be very, very minimally trained so as to not present TOO much of a hazard to everyone and everything around you (i.e., unless you are COMPLETELY incompetant, you can fly).

Some people have a different attitude towards guns--they think the burden of proof should rest on the gun owner to make the case for why he should have guns.

Quote :

" Maybe I’ll sue my employer tomorrow since they infringe on my 2nd amendment rights to bring my .12 gauge shotgun to work."

You have no 2nd Amendment right to bring a shotgun to work, just like you have no 1st Amendment right to expect a newspaper to print your letter to the editor.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 8:04 PM. Reason : asfd]

5/4/2009 8:02:10 PM

Quote :

"taxes on bullets"

hahaha someone must have watched Chris Rock standup and assumed all black people feel that way and spread the word to gun guys. In all the debates on gun control I have never seen anyone ever mention bullets... ever.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : V that would be why, dont really pay attention to state politics.]

5/4/2009 8:30:13 PM

an ammo tax has been tried at the state level several times, along with a requirement for serialized (and registered?) bullets.


[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2009 8:38:09 PM

Quote :

"I see no problem with requiring a 3-day waiting period to buy a handgun. If you have legal intentions than whats the problem. If you really really need a handgun today to off your cheating wife or lead to your revolution against the man than i'm sure you can get a handgun SOME how like every other gangster/criminal/felon who manages to pack heat without going through the normal legal channels."

Here's one for you. My wife has a client at her new job, who was a coworker at her previous job. This person has an extremely short temper and a drug problem, and was fired from the job where they worked together. He was fired in part due to testimony from my wife. The day he got fired, he called her up at her job and started harassing her and making veiled threats. Now, this guy knows exactly where she works now and knows that there are times she works alone, because as I mentioned, he is a client of her current employer. The nearest police presence to where she works is 10 minutes by car, assuming that the traffic is light. If this was your wife, would you feel comfortable telling her to wait 3 days before she can get a gun to protect herself with? Or even better, she can wait the weeks it would take to get a restraining order and hope that he's afraid of a bit of paper.

Quote :

"If you really want to get into it; I can not yell "FUCK" over a broadcast radio. WHAT THE HELL. This is my 1st amendment right. If only the founding fathers had the foresight to imagine the world of the automobile. Since I think the gov't infringes on my right to drive a car by making me hit up the DMV, register my vehicle, and ruining my liberty to pursue happiness by taking my drivers license after my 2nd DUI."

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone (at least here) that argues for looser gun laws but more restrictive censorship on broadcast. Most of us are of the opinion that radios were given the ability to change stations and even be turned off for a reason.

Also, as duke already covered, you can drive a vehicle all you want all over your private property. Its driving on public roads that's the problem. Further, such laws are the domain of the states, not the fed.

Quote :

"What about laws about preventing those with mental illness or a convicted violent offender from going in to buy a new glock?? "

Mentally ill is a tough one, but honestly. If we're letting violent criminals out in society, then they are free men and as such should have all the rights that go with that. If you're so afraid he's going to hurt someone, why are you letting him go in the first place?

Quote :

"Roger McDouche just kicked my ass; i'm going to go to walmart get a gun and show him whose boss." Although I guess you could still do this if you already had a gun. "

You can still do it even now. The 3 day bit only applies to hand guns, you can walk into walmart and walk out with a 12 gauge and kill Roger just as dead in 30 minutes. Also this:

Quote :

"Or if you have a knife or a shovel or any number of things you can use as a weapon. If someone wants to kill someone they're going to make it happen. "

Quote :

"Its my right as an amurican for me, my son, my woman, and my granchildren to have each of these!!!! yeeehaawww!!!"

When we get to the point of where owning and firing fully automatic crew serviced machine guns and artillery are within the domain of the common man and at risk of being a problem, we'll talk. Until then, we have a long way to go before you need to be worried about your neighbor putting a howitzer round through your door. Also as the duke covered, owning fully automatic weapons is perfectly legal in most (all?) states.

5/4/2009 8:52:55 PM

Quote :

"it's driving it on public roads that you have to play by their rules with."

So how about this. What if mere ownership of guns was not touched. However, pro-active legislatures start putting restrictions on where you can bring your gun. This is already the case of NCSU (I support concealed carry at NCSU) but what about if the law was changed though that you can have your AK-47 or glock at your place. When you are on state/federally funded roads though these items are prohibited (with maybe some loophole to allow transport of your weapon after purchase or to use at other private venues like the shooting range)

5/4/2009 10:18:33 PM

Quote :

"Here's one for you. My wife has a client at her new job, who was a coworker at her previous job. This person has an extremely short temper and a drug problem, and was fired from the job where they worked together. He was fired in part due to testimony from my wife. The day he got fired, he called her up at her job and started harassing her and making veiled threats. Now, this guy knows exactly where she works now and knows that there are times she works alone, because as I mentioned, he is a client of her current employer. The nearest police presence to where she works is 10 minutes by car, assuming that the traffic is light. If this was your wife, would you feel comfortable telling her to wait 3 days before she can get a gun to protect herself with? Or even better, she can wait the weeks it would take to get a restraining order and hope that he's afraid of a bit of paper."

If the threat is that serious, she takes time off of work or hires professional body guard. It's not like your wife is gonna get a gun, become proficient in armed self defense and go back to work without a care in the world if and only if we have zero common sense rules about firearms purchases.

5/4/2009 10:24:33 PM

Quote :

"she takes time off of work or hires professional body guard"

5/4/2009 10:46:17 PM

Taking time off is fantastic, except that of course she would either need to have the paid time off available, or use savings to pay for it and it's significantly more expensive than purchasing a hand gun. Further, why should she have to lock herself away from the world because some hothead can't keep his cool and some people actually think that owning a gun makes you a killer. Secondly, how many people do you know of that have the money to hire a body guard? Third, why should she hire a body guard (who will of course have a gun) when she's capable of defending herself with a gun? Fourth, you're assuming that the type of person who would purchase and carry a gun for self protection would not be proficient or at least skilled in its use. Bear in mind she only needs to go to the range and rent a gun once a month to receive more training than most cops.

But all of that is beside the point when she has the right to defend herself, and a 3 day waiting period can interfere with that legitimate and legal use.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : dgfh]

5/4/2009 10:47:03 PM

Quote :

" Here's one for you. My wife has a client at her new job, who was a coworker at her previous job. This person has an extremely short temper and a drug problem, and was fired from the job where they worked together. He was fired in part due to testimony from my wife. The day he got fired, he called her up at her job and started harassing her and making veiled threats. Now, this guy knows exactly where she works now and knows that there are times she works alone, because as I mentioned, he is a client of her current employer. The nearest police presence to where she works is 10 minutes by car, assuming that the traffic is light. If this was your wife, would you feel comfortable telling her to wait 3 days before she can get a gun to protect herself with? Or even better, she can wait the weeks it would take to get a restraining order and hope that he's afraid of a bit of paper."

Are you kidding me. Yeah a gun would have guaranteed her safety if someone was out to get her. Since obviously she is a trained
marksmen and has eyes in the back of her head. If your wife was that afraid for he safety she should have mentioned something to her boss,
contacted the police, and filed a restraining order. Contrary to your happy trigger finger firing your weapon should be the last
line of defense; especially if their is an alternative option to provide your wife with both physical safety and piece of mind.

Even if she rolled with a P-90 anti-personal SMG all it would take is some dude hiding behind a car in the parking lot to pop
out of no where and put two shots on mark.

Nice anecdote though I am sure you could sell it to Hollywood for a script.

Quote :

"But all of that is beside the point when she has the right to defend herself, and a 3 day waiting period can interfere with that legitimate and legal use should be going to the police if she's that afraid someone is out to get her and not rely on playing cowboy in the parking lot with her 9mm even if the 3-day thing did NOT exist."

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason : l]

5/4/2009 11:34:11 PM

She did speak with her boss.

Question: What do you expect her boss to do? They could drop the client, but only after a period of time, in the mean time, she still needs to work.

She did contact the police.

Since the threats were made over the phone and she had no evidence thereof, the best they could do is investigate. Also remember the closest police presence is 10 minutes away. Hardly useful if he shows up at her office and causes trouble.

She could have gotten a restraining order, but paper can't protect you, especially when the enforcement for that paper is 10 minutes away. Or do you seriously expect that the police will post an officer at her office round the clock to walk her to her car?

But here is the best part, her being able to obtain a firearm would have done nothing to prevent her from taking these other measures as well. Imagine that, with a firearm, she can have all the protections modern society can offer her (a 10 minute response time, assuming that 911 isn't busy) and still have the option to defend herself should the need arise.

On the other hand, with your 3 day waiting period, she has to rely on the police to arrive in response to a 911 call, and hope that she can deter and/or hold out until the police arrive.

And don't give me crap about anecdotes, you wanted to know a legitimate reason why someone would have legal need of a gun before the end of a 3 day waiting period. I gave you a real example, of a real life situation. Just because it doesn't mesh with your "yehaw git er dun!" view of gun owners doesn't make it any less valid of an example.

I should also mention in regards to police response times, there is a thread here from a few years back, when I actually had bullets come through my window, though thankfully no one was hurt. We called the police to report shots fired. The police had a substation within about 20 minutes walking distance to my apartment at the time. It took them 45 minutes to show up. They never did find the shooter, but they busted some kids for drugs. So you'll have to excuse me if my faith in the ability of the police to show up in time to make a difference is rather non existent.

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 12:03 AM. Reason : sadsf]

5/4/2009 11:57:59 PM

Quote :

"you wanted to know a legitimate reason why someone would have legal need of a gun before the end of a 3 day waiting period"

Fair enough

though unless she has borrowed a weapon in the past to shoot at the range; there is a lot of room for error if she ran to Walmart
the day of the threat to obtain her firing arm. In the name of safety I don't think i'd trust this perp when my wife's only
defense is a fire arm she is not trained on. By the time she reaches into her purse figures out the safety and takes reasonable aim
the situation could be dire.

All this is forgetting that just b.c she got her gun does not mean she could conceal carry it or even be allowed to brandish her fire arm
at work since most companies prohibit.

Quote :

"So you'll have to excuse me if my faith in the ability of the police to show up in time to make a difference is rather non existent. "

If you already had your gun (after waiting 3 days) than you could be sitting in the living room with your .357 special ready to light up any thugs about to
break in to score cash for their crack rocks.....

You are right above and I appreciate your example. This is my opinion would be rare and for the most part I do not see any reason (disregarding rather its right or wrong)
why a person who needs/wants a gun for legal purposes can not wait the 3 days. If though it shuts the anti-gun liberals up enough
to establish the 3-day rule, even in in reality it has no effect, than whats the big deal if it can vent off any further progress
toward pushing the anti-gun agenda further.

Why do I need to sign an arbitrary piece of paper to get a beer keg??? I can buy 10 cases of beer and still have the same amount
of booze. I suppose some do-gooder politician though if it could inconvenience young people amount to reduce minor alcohol consumption
by a slim few % than the benefits outweigh the cost.

By the way is not the 3-day thing a state mandated restriction....

5/5/2009 12:17:22 AM

Quote :

"i think it's hard to argue that there aren't certain types of weapons that should have a higher standard for ownership (let's say tanks, high explosives, etc)."

There is a higher standard. It's called the price

5/5/2009 7:22:21 AM

This is very true aaronburro. We should let teh freemarket decide this way our local cocaine distributor will have the money at hand to purchase a few P90 for their security (keep away those pesky police and crack heads) that the avg citizen is not able to afford.

5/5/2009 7:34:39 AM

Quote :

".357 special"

5/5/2009 7:44:00 AM

;

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 8:24 AM. Reason : ;]

5/5/2009 8:20:38 AM

Quote :

"This is very true aaronburro. We should let teh freemarket decide this way our local cocaine distributor will have the money at hand to purchase a few P90 for their security (keep away those pesky police and crack heads) that the avg citizen is not able to afford."

Isn't this the way it already is? What would any law do to prevent this? What incentive "local cocaine distributor" have to follow any law that we could create regarding firearms?

5/5/2009 8:52:47 AM

I just want to point this out: The black market is expensive because its black, and police are not as well-outfitted/skilled as films lead us to believe.

5/5/2009 11:25:20 AM

Im with Duke.

This ammo shit has gotta end.

I haven't been able to go and enjoy a day at the range in a while, because I can't spend time hunting down ammo all day, and when I make my random stops, they are all sold out.

I just got a brand new AR-15 and only have 200 rounds of .223 to shoot through it, because I can't find the stuff in stock anywhere.

Lame.

5/5/2009 12:22:35 PM

Quote :

".357 special"

Does it also shoot .38 Magnum cartridges?

5/5/2009 3:12:05 PM

Quote :

"I see no problem with requiring a 3-day waiting period to buy a handgun."

What is the purpose of this waiting period? What does it accomplish? Do you have any statistics that it accomplishes anything at all, other than making people wait 3 days for a gun?


Speaking of gun control...the bill to repeal the need for a purchase permit in NC was dropped, I believe...

5/5/2009 6:58:04 PM

Quote :

"Fair enough though unless she has borrowed a weapon in the past to shoot at the range; there is a lot of room for error if she ran to Walmart the day of the threat to obtain her firing arm. In the name of safety I don't think i'd trust this perp when my wife's only defense is a fire arm she is not trained on. By the time she reaches into her purse figures out the safety and takes reasonable aim the situation could be dire. "

As I said, this all assumes that the type of person to carry a gun to protect themselves would not have already spent considerable time on the range with multiple guns before choosing the gun to buy. Just because someone doesn't own a gun doesn't mean they don't know how to use one. Or is it your argument that guns are such complex devices that one can not, no matter how much prior experience before ownership, quickly become familiar with its operation in order to protect themselves, but is so blindingly simple to use that we must have a 3 day waiting period to prevent untrained people from buying, and killing someone in the heat of the moment?

Incidentally, in some states (such as NC) with restrictions on handgun ownership (relative to long gun) if you get a CCP, you can buy as many handguns as you want without any further restrictions, which is why many people wind up with a CCP before they ever even own a gun.

Quote :

"All this is forgetting that just b.c she got her gun does not mean she could conceal carry it or even be allowed to brandish her fire arm at work since most companies prohibit."

1) The benefits of working for a small company where employees are still people.

2) Infringement of our rights to bear arms* is just as much a problem as infringements on our right to keep them, but one step at a time, and that's outside the scope of this particular train of discussion.

Quote :

"If you already had your gun (after waiting 3 days) than you could be sitting in the living room with your .357 special ready to light up any thugs about to break in to score cash for their crack rocks....."

Even if one already had a gun, that does not necessarily mean it is the right one for the job. A handgun is not as effective as a shot gun for home defense, but a shotgun is not easily carried about. Similarly, a handgun that is adequate for range use or even for me to carry may not be adequate for my wife to carry concealed or otherwise. Few people have the money to buy a complete set of guns in a single go.

Quote :

"You are right above and I appreciate your example. This is my opinion would be rare and for the most part I do not see any reason (disregarding rather its right or wrong) why a person who needs/wants a gun for legal purposes can not wait the 3 days. If though it shuts the anti-gun liberals up enough to establish the 3-day rule, even in in reality it has no effect, than whats the big deal if it can vent off any further progress toward pushing the anti-gun agenda further."

This is a dangerous path to take. Slippery slope may be a fallacy in logic, but when it comes to the government, every bit of human history has demonstrated that inches will always, without fail, become miles. Further, if the waiting period really only serves to placate the fears of the irrational, is that truly worth surrendering our rights for? Would you be in favor of burkas for all on NC State to placate Gary?

Quote :

"Why do I need to sign an arbitrary piece of paper to get a beer keg??? I can buy 10 cases of beer and still have the same amount of booze. I suppose some do-gooder politician though if it could inconvenience young people amount to reduce minor alcohol consumption by a slim few % than the benefits outweigh the cost. "

As I said before, you won't find support here for inane laws like this. But previous transgressions against our rights as free people do not justify or warrant further infringements.

Quote :

"By the way is not the 3-day thing a state mandated restriction...."

As far as I know it is, but my arguments apply equally to all restrictive purchasing laws which do little to stop the criminals and mostly harass law abiding citizens. The law can even vary by county or city. For example, in durham, you need two notarized character witness statements, an officer who knows you (it's not clear if this is mandatory, but it is on the mandatory application), to provide a "valid" reason for owning a pistol, an application turned in in person during business hours (sucks to be the type of citizen that works a normal office job) and a wait of up to 30 days before you will be granted the permission to attempt to purchase a hand gun. You will then still need to go through the normal federal processes including a NICs check and any other state requirements.

http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/shrf/Operations/Records/Gun_Permits/Pistol_Permit_Instru.html

Or, if you're a criminal with no intent on following laws in the first place, you can check a few back alleys in Durham.

Quote :

"Speaking of gun control...the bill to repeal the need for a purchase permit in NC was dropped, I believe..."

Disappointing but not surprising. Something about guns makes people become suddenly irrationally afraid of the very same people they interact with on a day to day basis. As if somehow this inanimate hunk of metal and plastic will by its very existence turn otherwise law abiding citizens into mass murderers.

For what it's worth, I am perfectly willing to reconsider my stance on waiting periods if anyone can find evidence that waiting periods have any significant impact on violent crimes of passion (and note that a guy bashing his wife's brains in with a hammer because he couldn't get a gun does not count as a supporting case for waiting periods).

5/5/2009 8:57:35 PM

I'm willing to bet most people who commit a crime of passion with a gun are way too pussy to commit the crime without a gun.

Not that this completely justifies 3-day waiting periods; I just disagree with your reasoning.

5/5/2009 10:45:27 PM

Again though, anything to back that up? Just something as simple as showing a significant reduction in crimes of passion after a waiting period law is introduced.

5/5/2009 11:03:40 PM

Quote :

"As far as I know it is, but my arguments apply equally to all restrictive purchasing laws which do little to stop the criminals and mostly harass law abiding citizens. The law can even vary by county or city. For example, in durham, you need two notarized character witness statements, an officer who knows you (it's not clear if this is mandatory, but it is on the mandatory application), to provide a "valid" reason for owning a pistol, an application turned in in person during business hours (sucks to be the type of citizen that works a normal office job) and a wait of up to 30 days before you will be granted the permission to attempt to purchase a hand gun. You will then still need to go through the normal federal processes including a NICs check and any other state requirements. "

Correct. Many people don't realize this, but a city, county, or even an entire state can constitutionally ban firearms.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

5/6/2009 11:53:11 AM

Quote :

"Many people don't realize this, but a city, county, or even an entire state can constitutionally ban firearms."

Not post-Heller they can't. They can make it virtually impossible, but Heller specifically found an individual right to firearms ownership. DC's ban was already overturned, and cities like Chicago's are under fire, and unlikely to be upheld.

5/6/2009 12:38:46 PM

^ Well that is the question now isn't it? I imagine many pro-gun citizens would argue that very point. Anti-gun sympathizers would, of course, argue that D.C. is a federal jurisdiction. Remember that the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated, not even after Heller.

5/6/2009 1:39:09 PM

Quote :

"Remember that the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated, not even after Heller."

I believe that it is unlikely that it will not be, however, in light of the findings of an individual right. Some restrictions will obviously still stand - the majority opinion left a loophole big enough to drive a truck through - but the fact remains that it hinged upon an individual right to firearms ownership, which is key. And already the incorporation cases are starting to work their way through the courts.

5/6/2009 1:41:25 PM