Home Security... Please help.

[Ryan Schaecher]

R Shek--Scan up through this thread, it's in the post I made which has two words bolded and underlined. (Will help you visually pick out the right post quickly.)

Yeah, sorry. Missed it. Glad that you're still here that's for sure.

So, maybe the gun advocates should show how the restrictions being placed on them are limiting the usefulness of guns. I think that would be very hard to show. Waiting to buy a gun, having to get a permit for it, etc...I don't see as hardships or limiting the useful purpose of a gun in any real way.

Personally, I can buy certain rifles and handguns over the internet or by phone without a background check, NICS (Brady) check, wait period, etc. If I order a handgun today, it will be here tomorrow. It's simple, easy and a lot of fun.



Background checks I don't have a problem with, except for the proposals to expand the "mental health" exceptions currently before the Senate so that if you've ever been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, PTSD or anything similar you can pretty much kiss off any chance of owning a firearm.



Most background checks are done in less than 10 minutes. If there is a hiccup, it delays the purchase by 1-2 days. I don't have too much of an issue with it, as long as all records of the check are destroyed after the check is complete (as is what is supposed to happen). The Form 7743 should also get destroyed once the gun shop has renewed their license. That doesn't happen.



Wait periods are rediculous. I won't accept a wait period on my car (a valid and correct comparison), why should I wait on receiving my firearm?



My personal next step is my concealed carry permit. My wife will probably get hers too.



Let's start with our favorite location, Washington D.C. There was a nearly complete gun ban in effect. The only exclusions were that the rifle (no handguns, period) or shotgun had to be disassebled or locked in a safe with a trigger lock as well. Sure has done a number on crime.



Then we can look at Chicago. Mr. Daley, Mr. Jackson et. al. have done a bang up job fighting crime, poverty and disparagy of the classes. Handguns and large cap. feeding devices are banned from the city limits, but that hasn't stopped the criminals for obtaining them and using them without mercy. Violent crime, rape, and murder are as high now as they have been in the last 30 years.



New York City. Mr. Bloomberg. He has appearantly decided that running roughshod over the city is not good enough. He has taken on the task of doing "undercover" stings in Maryland, Virgina and Vermont and has put his city atturney on the case of suing gun shop owners in areas where they have no jurisdiction. Appearantly the criminals are the gun store owners who obeyed their own state law, but not the gang members in Queens with the illegally modified rifles and illegal-to-own-in-the-city handguns. To own a handgun legally in the city involves significant red tape scissors. You're better off living outside of town.



San Fransisco. Sheesh. Do we really need to go there?



Then we can go abroad. Britian, Austrailia and Canada are all seeing a surge in violent crime, rape, mugging, etc. because the average Joe cannot own a firearm of any sort but the criminals have no problem getting them. The criminals know that the general populace is prime targets as they are disarmed and helpless.

 

[Rich Stern]

So, maybe the gun advocates should show how the restrictions being placed on them are limiting the usefulness of guns. I think that would be very hard to show. Waiting to buy a gun, having to get a permit for it, etc...I don't see as hardships or limiting the useful purpose of a gun in any real way.

Imagine a person, in legitimate fear for their life, today, from whatever threat, going to a gun store, hoping to get a gun for self-protection, and being told their is a 7 day waiting period. "Oh, no problem. I'll just leave a note for my stalker to hold off on attacking for a week."



Permits? What exactly does a piece of private property, on my person, of no concern of anyone else's, need oversight from the government? What authority is granted to government by the Consititution over my ownership of private property and my free movement while having said property on my person? The answer? None. Or, go one further, for someplace like Chicago, or D.C. On what authority does government in those locales rely on to say I cannot own a handgun? Zero. It's not granted to them, but they do it anyway.



And speaking of Chicago: The Chicago Police Department is criminally abusive. Among large metro police forces, it has one of the highest incidents of battery and assualt against citizens, and lowest rates of prosection for such acts. Why? Oh, I remember. Law abiding citizens aren't armed, so they are easy prey for any criminal, including a criminal who wears a badge and bludgeons you in the name of the state.

 

[Johnny O]

Are Flair guns legal in Canada ????



I would hate to be hit by one of them !!!!



I know IT is a PITA to get a hand gun in NY, waiting period, back round search, all the jazz...

It took a while to get mine....

When I was taking my boating license class (in PA) they told us that carrying flare guns on Lake Erie is a bad idea because it is a firearm offense should you enter into NY or Canadian waters.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich Stern,



If someone "all of a sudden" needs the kind of protection only a gun can provide, then I suspect they should be going to the police....or the local WalMart for a hunting rifle and ammo. :-0



I for one don't want any "scared sh!tless" people who are all nervous, twitchy, and fearful for their lives going to the corner gun store and loading up then hitting the streets.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

If someone "all of a sudden" needs the kind of protection only a gun can provide, then

I suspect they should be going to the police

That would be laughable if it weren't sadly tragic. They'll tell you to go to court and get a restraining order (assuming you know the peson threatening you), and if the subject of the restraining order violates the order, they'll arrest that person. Of course, you can't call 9-1-1 if you are dead, but that's why police departments have homicide units.



The law of the land (according to several very tragic cases and the Supreme Court of the United States) is that the police have no legal obligation to protect the public. There is no statute or court case that says, if you feel you are in danger, they must expend resources to protect you.



The truth is, you are your own first line of defense. The vast majority of law enforcement personnel would try to protect you if they happened to be in a position to do so at the moment you are attacked, but it's not neither their job or obligation to wait with you for that moment, so the best they can do is get there 5...10...15 minutes after the call comes in.

....or the local WalMart for a hunting rifle and ammo. :-0

Yeah, that'll work. "Is that a .30-06 under your coat, or are you just happy to see me?"

I for one don't want any "scared sh!tless" people who are all nervous, twitchy, and fearful for their lives going to the corner gun store and loading up then hitting the streets.

Your position is: A citizen's right to defend himself or herself should be limited by your need to feel comfortable?

 

[Gavin Allan]

So, maybe the gun advocates should show how the restrictions being placed on them are limiting the usefulness of guns. I think that would be very hard to show. Waiting to buy a gun, having to get a permit for it, etc...I don't see as hardships or limiting the useful purpose of a gun in any real way.

I don't see why all NRA people become agitated whenever someone suggests even a subtle change in the gun laws.

You are right. Guns are different from other dangerous tools. The right to bear arms is SPECIFICALLY addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Constitutionally, citizens have the right to bear arms, and gun controls interfer with this constitutional right of US citizens.



BTW: I am not a member of the NRA.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich said:

Your position is: A citizen's right to defend himself or herself should be limited by your need to feel comfortable?

Limited for my comfort?...no, I didn't say that. But a person's right to PROTECT themselves should be limited in so much that as they attempt to protect themselves they do so responsibly and without endangering others.



Gangs on the street that are killing each other and little, innocent kids are in the crossfire. Those gangs are simply trying to PROTECT themselves...and I'm sorry, but you are right, I am NOT comfortable with that.



What I was trying to describe was the "going off half-cocked" approach to defending oneself. You are familiar with that saying, I hope. I'm not comfortable with that dynamic...no sane person would be.



And Gavin, others, please stop waving the Constitution. We've heard it all before. No one is taking away the right to own a gun.



And note that I never even called for restrictions.



I started the thread by asking for responsible gun ownership. And, I got POUNCED on for that by seeming zealots...as if responsible gun owernship was somehow controversial. By the posturing and emotional grandstanding on here against my call for responsible gun ownership I have to wonder if the people chiming in are even rational and level headed enough to own guns.



I guess that's why so many view gun advocates in a negative light. When someone simply asks for responsible ownership they get all bent out of shape and go off half-cocked spouting canned rhetoric. It really doesn't do too much for the cause.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Yeah, instead of seeking to understand, it is just easier to start calling names...

 

[Rich Stern]

TJR, you are downplaying your stated and implied positions. Let's review some of your "suggestions":



- Relying on oneself for protection is not as good as relying on the police, i.e., if you feel threatened, go to the police and everything will be ok.



- A person who is under some type of fear-inspired durress cannot be trusted with a gun.

Not sure how that works...if I'm afraid for my life and stressed out about it, and I already own a gun, is that signficantly different than being afraid for my life, stressed out about it, and just having bought a gun?



- A rifle is a suitable self-defense tool for an average person who can't wait to get a handgun.



- People (gangs) engaged in criminal conduct are "just trying to protect themselves."



Trying to fit everyone's circumstances into a single solution, e.g., "Nobody could possibly need a handgun the same day they purchase it." Well, guess what? For some, that's the best tool for the unique circumstances they face in their lives. And it's supposed to be their right to own a gun, carry it, and protect their life and property with it if need be. That's not supposed to be INFRINGED upon. The Consitution states it. The speeches, letters and documents of the founders reinforce it with considerable emphasis.



I restate my original response to the NRA "kneejerk reaction to changes argument": If politicians and lobbyists were honest, there would be no problem. But Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Sarah Brady, Hangun Control, Inc., et. al., put forth some of the most patently false statements in pursuit of removing gun rights, including lying about the nature and intent of legislation.



When the Brady bill was being debated back in the late 1980's, Sarah Brady made numerous statements to the effect of: "John Hinkley would not have been able to buy the gun he used to shoot the President and my husband if we had this law then."



Patently false, and she was well aware of it.



The Hinckley attempt was one of the most thoroughly invested federal crimes ever. When Hinckley's actions in buying, transporting and using the revolver he shot Reagan and the three other men with are compared to the provisions in the Brady bill, the end result is exactly the same: Nothing Hinckley did leading up to the assassination would have been prevented by the Brady bill.



And this is not an isolated case. It happens EVERY TIME there is gun legislation pending.



So, given the tactics in use by the anti-2nd Amendment people, is it so hard to understand why the pro-2nd Amendment crowd has a "hair trigger" reaction to legislative efforts at gun control?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich Stern said several things:

Relying on oneself for protection is not as good as relying on the police, i.e., if you feel threatened, go to the police and everything will be ok.

I never said that, though I understand how you could assume I implied that. Buying a gun, "on the spot", in a hurry for some sudden protection need seems ludicrous to me *if that is the only action one were to take*. I would hope a reasonable person's first action would be to call the police, seek protection from them, then obtain a gun in necessary. Calling the police can be done in seconds, and a response in a few minutes...buying a gun legally no matter how easy it is takes longer than that.

A person who is under some type of fear-inspired duress cannot be trusted with a gun.

I never said CANNOT. But I clearly did imply that I don't think we as a society would be safer if anyone, for whatever reason, could just go down to the corner store and buy a handgun on the spot. But that's what your "I'm all of a sudden in fear for my life and there is no time, nor value in calling the police" scenario would have to allow.

People (gangs) engaged in criminal conduct are "just trying to protect themselves."

Yeah, that's right. People claim the need to have guns as protection. Kids take them to school for protection. Inner city youths have them on the corner for protection. You seem to want to allow anyone who feels threatened to be able to easily get a gun.



I fear that if we had a society where people could easily get a handgun, without wait, without restriction, that we would see an increase in gun violence and therefore an increased need for protection (in other words, your idea would make things worse). Illegal handguns are very costly and that keeps them out of the hands of many unstable people, or people in temporary situations of conflict. For most of middle America, getting an illegal handgun, quickly, isn't that easy a thing to do, and as I said, is costly where available.



But if we all were legally able to obtain a handgun, cheaply (a couple of hundred dollars, or with a credit card), on a whim, within a matter of minutes, without restriction, do you REALLY think society would be better? For every isolated case of such a gun used for legitimate protection I suspect there would be countless cases of detrimental use.



I certainly don't.



P.S. You mention the Brady bill, and you close about legislative efforts. AGAIN, please NOTE, I haven't asked for increased or new laws or restrictions. I just want to encourage responsible gun ownership and for us to enforce the laws on the books that make sense (like a waiting period, registration). I guess that makes me a zealot.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin said:

Yeah, instead of seeking to understand, it is just easier to start calling names...

I never called anyone a name. I used the term "seeming zealot", which isn't name calling...it's an observation and a judgement based on the thread. People responding as they are with the passion that they are using in their response are "like zealots". That is an observation. Now if I called these people a "jerk", or a "douche", or some clearly negative thing like that then it would be name calling, especially if directed at an individual. I did no such thing. A zealot is somone who is passionate about their beliefs...I see no issue in observing when someone is such.



Oh, and with regards to "seeking to understand", no one YET has attempted to understand or even respond to my general stance which is:



1) Why is a call for responsible gun ownership so controversial and why does it bring out the chest-beating of the pro-gun crowd? (Rich did explain that a bit, but then went back to increased legislation which I never even brought up).



2) How exactly do current laws and restrictions, specifically the "waiting period" and the need to register a gun impede in one's ability to legally own and use a gun, and why are they any different than our restrictions and legislation of other potentially dangerous products?



(Best we got was that we have a Constitutional right to own guns, but not cars, screwdrivers, etc, which again is lame, because though we have a Constitutional right to own guns, that doesn't necessarily mean that that right comes without restrictions...all of the rights laid out by the Constitution are done so in an abstract way, with the specific meaning and definition changing over time based on current law. Our founding fathers knew they didn't have all the answers, that's why we have ammendments.).



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

quote]or the local WalMart for a hunting rifle and ammo[/quote]



Hunting rifles are the worst kind of home defence firearm. A shotgun is reasonable. Hunting rifles are meant to kill animals at ranges upto and including 750 yards, some upto 1000 yards. When you're talking FEET between you and your assailiant, imagine what the damage would be to people and/or objects 1 block away from your target. One of the first rules of firearms is to know your target and what is beyond. Stopping and/or killing the bad guy is one thing. Killing or seriously injuring your neighbor when a .30 caliber bullet from next door during a home robbery/assault is another. There are commercially available self-protection rounds designed to break-up when hitting objects such as walls, wood, brick, etc.

No one is taking away the right to own a gun.

Uh, yeah they are. Ask Rep. McCarthy about HR1022. Ask Senator Schumer. Ask Senator Clinton. Ask nearly every Democrat on the House Committee on Homland Security. All signed onto 1022.



They don't want you to have ANY gun. Ask the Justice Department why they are going after gun store owners who have done everything legally. Ask the BATFE about why they do half the stuff they do. Ask Mayor Daley. Ask Mayor Bloomburg. Ask Mayor Newsome. Ask the Chicago Metro Police Cheif. All of them want private ownership of firearms abolished.

But if we all were legally able to obtain a handgun, cheaply (a couple of hundred dollars, or with a credit card), on a whim, within a matter of minutes, without restriction

Hi-Point .45ACP $145

Instant NICS Check - $-0.00

1 Box of .45ACP Jacketed Hollow Points $23.25

Being able to walk out of the gun store the same day with a handgun... Priceless.

Welcome to Arkansas, Missouri, and about 25 other states or more.

1) Why is a call for responsible gun ownership so controversial and why does it bring out the chest-beating of the pro-gun crowd? (Rich did explain that a bit, but then went back to increased legislation which I never even brought up).

You will half to define REASONABLE. If it's the gun owner being taught proper techniques, storage, use, basic understanding, cleaning, basic common sense rules of use, etc. Then I agree 110%. If it's the government comming and telling me what I can and cannot own, where I can and cannot store, how I can or cannot carry, etc. Then I disagree 100%.



I will agree to limits on fully automatic rifles. While I don't think then need to be banned, some restrictions are reasonable. But standard handguns and rifles, the I'll let the government do a basic background check (criminality, mental handicap or any restraining order) and that's about all they need to be involved. The Constitution is clear, concise and perfect. The right to own a firearm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If it said the RIGHT TO OWN A CAR shall not be infringed, would we be having the same arguement?

2) How exactly do current laws and restrictions, specifically the "waiting period" and the need to register a gun impede in one's ability to legally own and use a gun, and why are they any different than our restrictions and legislation of other potentially dangerous products?

Registration is the first step to confiscation. It happened in Germany, Italy, et. al. It leads to the Government having too much power. When the government knows where all the guns are, they know who to go after should the preverbial Poo Hit The Fan. Sorry jack. Won't happen. The day that all firearms need to be registered is the day I rent a boat and have an unfortunate boating accident where all my firearms and ammo went "overboard". Kiss my ass.



What exactly other "dangerous" products do we register? Cars? Boats? Planes? I havn't registered anything with the government other than my cars and my home. They are registered ONLY because the gover

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

all of the rights laid out by the Constitution are done so in an abstract way, with the specific meaning and definition changing over time based on current law

Oh I disagree wholeheartedly. The Bill of Rights is straight-forward, easy reading and easy to understand. The meanings do not change overtime:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Uh, that hasn't changed. In fact, it's become quite the fashion statement, especially by the left, to say It's My First Amendment Right to....

2)A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not really sure what's NOT clear about that one.

3)No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Hasn't changed any. Never been a problem that I am aware of.

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If anything, this one amendment has been confirmed and reconfirmed time and time again. Miranda rights, etc.

5) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This one has been violated a few times and streched other times, at least the end of it. But, is there any question to what it says?

6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

This is the basis for our court system. Still in use.

7) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Questions?

8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The only question here is what is cruel and unusual punishment?

9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Relatively straight forward.

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

<B

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



You are kidding, right?



Each of the Bill of Rights you mention has countless pieces of legislation and legal precedent associated with them; legislation that continues to grow over time.



Heck, the legal precedent and case law related to the "so-called" separation clause of the 1st amendment and the controversy surrounding said makes my point that the amendments are indeed vague.



I wish the Bill of Rights were interpreted and enforced more literally, but I am a realist, living in the real world and I recognize that the job of SC judges seems to be that of interpreting the Constitution and apply and ruling on law based on their interpretations and beliefs.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

XST, sorrry, we hijacked your thread! (But no actual firearms were used in the hijacking)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek, and since you spend so much time in quoting the BofR, I will take a few, one by one:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, this not vague you say. Well, I ask, if a county courthouse wants to display a plague 10 Commandments in their courtroom, is that "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?" Clearly it is NOT. Yet, because of that clause in the 1st amendment county courthouses around the land have been forced to remove such plagues as they are unconstitutional.

2)A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems to me that by the use of the term "Militia", and the phrase "necessary to the security of a free State", that this ammendment is stating that people shall have the right to arms and the government cannot take that away for the primary reason that the people may need the guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of govt. I don't know of any other way to interpret that given the climate and time with which it was written, and given the words as written. So it begs the question...when our government has tanks and nuclear weapons why are we talking about hand guns for private owners in this context? Shouldn't we be talking about our rights to own our own nukes, and or own tanks and our own bombers, because isn't that the type of arms we need for security of our state against our own government and from foreign invaders?



The rest of the BofR continue to be updated by case law. Granted, none have been overturned in their essence...but they are far from exact laws.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

if a county courthouse wants to display a plague 10 Commandments in their courtroom...Yet, because of that clause in the 1st amendment county courthouses around the land have been forced to remove such plagues as they are unconstitutional.

Man--I might not agree with the idea of posting the 10 Commandments in courthouses, but calling them a "plague" is a little harsh, isn't it? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Ouch...plague...ouch, I meant plaque.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

The Constitution exists to limit the power of the govt, not the power of the people. This is why the govt and SC are usually looking for ways to get around it.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JohnnyO says:

The Constitution exists to limit the power of the govt, not the power of the people. This is why the govt and SC are usually looking for ways to get around it.

There's my half-empty quote of the day. Thanks.



TJR