Quote from: Kylie on April 15, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful post explaining your position.  I can see a lot of your points, and never considered the issue of the money involved in obtaining permit training.  I guess my problem is in just making it a free for all which seems like what is being advocated more and more.  Perhaps you can shed some light on a couple questions I have:

1. Why are background checks and chain of custody registrations so offensive?

I have a problem with a state taking away your right, but I don't have a problem with them reasonably regulating that right. I think you said you lived in Massachusetts, but it sounds like you are able to reasonably exercise that right despite their stiffer regulations.  Your neighbor is obviously getting the shaft, but like any bad law, it could be fixed.  I also think a conceal carry permit should suffice as a background check.

2. If we are literal about "shall not be infringed" should we not be as literal about the stated purpose for the arms in the amendment "a well regulated militia" not because it is necessary for recreation, personal protection etc.?

I actually like shooting trap and skeet.  I got turned off to hand guns when I was in high school.  One of our classes went to a shooting range, and with the gun in my hand, I looked around at my classmates.  I didn't like the power, it actually made me physically shudder.  I never had the same reaction to rifles or shotguns though.  I shot a bird with a BB gun once, and made my mom take me to the humane society to get it fixed.  I felt horrible for weeks.  I'm just not cut out for killing things.

The problem I have is with the "reasonable regulation". Was is it exactly? Massachusetts gun laws are so byzantine that not even cops know how to enforce them. What guns people can own and carry changes like the weather here. Even cops themselves have run afoul of the laws since they cannot understand how they work. I have started to like the idea of "constitutional carry", BUT, at the same time I like the idea of having a license if only for the fact that if I am stopped by the police they know that not only am I armed but not a threat to them either, so we can both go home happy and alive.

In the US, it's army is made of volunteer citizen soldiers. Although some people choose a life as professional soldier, it all starts with the individual. The US wanted to get itself off to a good start and wanted it's citizen soldiers to preserve the good marksmen, after all they had just finished fighting the worlds biggest army with citizen soldiers for their own independence. You can't have a fighting force if there is no one who knows how. They also wanted "the people" to own the implements of war, not the government. This is why we have the system we have today, although it has run pretty far astray giving the advances in technology. But I do agree with the fact that "shall not be infringed" has been twisted and warped like so many other parts of our constitution. This whole war on terrorism concept has been used to lull people into a false sense of security by freely giving up their own rights like protections against illegal searches, civil asset forfeiture, airport security that needs to see your naked body before letting you on a plane, no cruel and unusual punishment (for poor transwomen sent to prison and denied hormones and basics). Either our rights mean something or we might as well just put it all to a vote and we better hope that some people come down on our side, because we will be in an awful place on that day.

One thing I just cannot bring myself to do, I guess I can qualify with yet, is to hunt. At my range we frequently have deer and wild turkey running around. If one wanders into the range I treat it as another club member who wandered into the range and wait for it to leave. There are definitely some women hunters out there. I recently came in contact with a group called "shoot like a girl" and they were very helpful and informative for me. They also have women only hunting trips and I am thinking of doing one, just for the fun of it. If I decided to get into hunting that's when this starts to get expensive with hunting gear, hunting rifles, etc. Target shooting with an ar15 by contrast is a low risk, low cost (besides the rifle) fun activity to just plink silly things. A few weeks ago I was shooting pumpkins and having fun shooting one off of a dirt mound and then trying to shoot it back onto the dirt mound. I know it's silly but if you were there you would have been laughing hysterically with me.

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 15, 2015, 10:38:12 PM
This thread has strongly affirmed my aversion to visiting or immigrating to the United States. If I must leave Canada, a Western European country or Japan may be fine.

It's still not a bad country to live in, has lower taxes, is pretty safe and you can pretty much do your own thing. If you don't like guns then don't exercise that right. That's your choice. Lots of people are non-gun owners. That's fine and that's how they live their lives. Not everyone wants the responsibility that comes with it. It's not exactly a cheap thing to get into either, licensing, buying a gun safe, gun safety classes, ammo, holsters, gun cases, reloaders, never mind the guns they're the cheap part). To get myself started I probably spent a good $5k and only about 1300 of that was the guns themselves. Once I got myself off the ground though and was able to try different guns is when I found the things I like.

Quote from: Jill F on April 13, 2015, 03:10:44 PMIf someone REALLY wants a gun, they most definitely will be able to obtain one illegally.

This is the entire reason I'm pro-gun, really. If you disarm the law-abiding citizens, then the only people with guns will be the police/military and the criminals...as Jill said, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 16, 2015, 08:22:45 AM
It's still not a bad country to live in, has lower taxes, is pretty safe and you can pretty much do your own thing. If you don't like guns then don't exercise that right. That's your choice. Lots of people are non-gun owners. That's fine and that's how they live their lives.

The U.S. isn't a bad country to live in, but there's at least 20 others I would pick before it. It is "pretty safe" compared with countries with a medium to high Human Development Index, but is not overly safe compared to other countries with a very high HDI. I don't like the use of guns (other than those used for hunting and paintball) by private civilians, and I don't exercise that right, because I, nor any of my fellow citizens, actually have that right.

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 01:39:24 PM
I don't like the use of guns (other than those used for hunting and paintball) by private civilians, and I don't exercise that right, because I, nor any of my fellow citizens, actually have that right.

That's great that you choose not to exercise a right, just understand the point I am making is that because you don't exercise a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, many people hunt with handguns and many even hunt with assault rifles since nearly all assault rifles will work with hunting caliber ammunition. In fact a lot of people hunt with military surplus rifles. I don't hunt but like to target shoot and yes I shoot the evil nasty "assault" guns, not because they are evil but because they are easy to shoot and over the decades have developed a reputation for extreme reliability. I like having the ability to choose. I choose to shoot this type of gun. Incidentally, the AR 15 is extremely popular among women. I have not met a woman yet who was a shooter and didn't own one.

*mod edit for content

Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 16, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
That's great that you choose not to exercise a right, just understand the point I am making is that because you don't exercise a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.

Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me. 

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.

Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.

Of course I can understand your point of view. Even if I am armed, anyone holding a gun to me is intimidating too, whether they are white, black, purple or aliens. It's a lethal force weapon. But what I have learned is that armed citizens are not the ones you have to be careful of. It's criminals, gangs, addicts and people like that. If someone is desperate enough they will do grievous harm to any of us here. If someone pulls a gun on me the last thing I want is to have no way to fight back. Yes I have pepper spray but it isn't going to help in that moment. When transgender people get hurt we are not just harmed we are slaughtered in brutally sadistic acts. I don't want to be a statistic from that kind of violence. I myself marched in a TG day of remembrance, in fact one of the first ones ever.

I can't speak for Canada, I'm in the US and here I have the right to choose whether or not I want to be an armed citizen. If I tell you when I first got my concealed carry license I had little experience with guns. I had the same level of fear and apprehension of handling firearms as anyone who is new to it. When I bought my first handgun I was afraid to carry it. I kept it locked in a safe for week. One day I said get used to it, and carried it unloaded. I went for months carrying it without any ammo (unloaded). Nowadays I walk out with my handgun loaded and ready to fire. I have the skill and training needed so that *if* I ever had to protect myself from someone pointing a gun at me, I am ready. My gun is not there to intimidate anyone, in fact it's concealed. I would only pull it out under a very specific set of circumstances which I understand from my training.

One thing that people in the USA seem to forget sometimes is that police are protectors. They cannot fire their guns anymore than I can. They can go to prison just as easily. In fact if you asked a cop they will tell you that their sidearm is for their own protection. It's a self-defense lethal force weapon for the purpose of the one who carries it. It makes a bang noise, and puts holes in things, that's basically all it does.

In our lives we walk past people all the time who are armed and we don't even know it. The last thing they want to do is to pull their weapon and start shooting. That's the nature of good people. But there are some sick people in this world, drug addicts, career criminals, street gangs. They are no longer in the inner city anymore, they have fanned out across the country. That doesn't mean that no one is safe. It just means that crime has moved from gangs to individuals. An individual is more likely to be the target of a crime than a gang member is. That's just the changing nature of crime.

I'm more into surface to air missiles when I go geese hunting saves time you don't need to retrieve the goose or hand grenades for fishing , a lot faster then wasting a day sitting in a boat.

Zumbagirl: that makes sense. I guess it is truly something that non-U.S. citizens don't fully understand.

I am saying however that Canadians do not have the right to bear arms, unless a member of a provincial police force. Police have small hand guns, and rarely ever is it that they use it. What you may find humourous is that civilians are not allowed to carry stun guns or pepper spray either, and that the legality of police officers having them is and has been questioned. I guess it really is just difference of culture.

On a slightly unrelated note, I remember watching a show about the U.S./Canada border where Americans who were told to leave their arms at the boarder before entering the country simply backed up and drove away. Many also tried arguing with the guards before driving away. It was quite interesting really.

That's very interesting what you say about Canada. There is currently a case before the US Supreme court involving a US citizen, living in Canada, who was unable to ship specific firearms to Canada from the US for use in hunting. So apparently this person figured out a way to keep handguns and rifles in Canada and they aren't even Canadian. The case raises interesting questions on limitations of US government power. I get the in other countries people don't like keeping arms. But I am a fan of history as well. Germany conquered Denmark in 6 hours since they were unarmed and defenseless. This is the most heavily armed country on earth by comparison and it's still a pretty cool place to live. There are many ordinary citizens who have marksmanship skills far beyond the ability of the best military snipers and marksmen. So the balance of power is in the hands of the people.

Massachusetts was the last state in the US when they legalized pepper spray this January 2015. Before January, it required a special firearms permit to possess it, or a concealed carry license. It's a non lethal weapon with a very low bar for usage. In other words it doesn't require a life threatening event to deploy.

Stun guns are only legal in 46 of the 50 states, illegal in Massachusetts. So here the options are, pepper spray or shoot.

I own several firearms, rifles, pistols, handguns.

I carry concealed everywhere I go wherever I can now, which is all 50 states thanks to HR218/LEOSA.

I believe the 2nd amendment recognizes a natural right to self defense, to keep and bear arms and militia service is not required. I also believe that civilians should be able to own any type of bearable arm that the military can have, which includes fully automatic machine guns (which are rarely used in crimes anyway). This does not include tanks, nukes and whatever other extreme stuff the anti-gun crowd likes to throw down as a "slippery slope" argument.

Regarding the militia stuff, and the right being collective rather than individual - does the Government really need a constitutional guarantee to arm itself? I didn't think so. The right is for the people, the individuals.

That said, of course convicted violent felons should not have firearms. Everybody else? Sure, why not.

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 09:14:20 PM
On a slightly unrelated note, I remember watching a show about the U.S./Canada border where Americans who were told to leave their arms at the boarder before entering the country simply backed up and drove away. Many also tried arguing with the guards before driving away. It was quite interesting really.

It kind of makes sense. I am not leaving my firearms with a Government bureaucrat who may lose or steal them. That said, if I am going to Canada (or Mexico) I make sure and leave them at home.

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.

Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.

I hear about shootings in Toronto all the time. A gun ban doesn't really seem to be doing much of anything.

Would you emigrate to Switzerland? Every adult is given a fully automatic gun as part of required military service. Their crime rate seems rather low too. Not saying it's the guns that cause the low crime rate, just that the two really aren't related.

Quote from: iKate on April 16, 2015, 11:44:22 PM
I own several firearms, rifles, pistols, handguns.

I carry concealed everywhere I go wherever I can now, which is all 50 states thanks to HR218/LEOSA.

I believe the 2nd amendment recognizes a natural right to self defense, to keep and bear arms and militia service is not required. I also believe that civilians should be able to own any type of bearable arm that the military can have, which includes fully automatic machine guns (which are rarely used in crimes anyway). This does not include tanks, nukes and whatever other extreme stuff the anti-gun crowd likes to throw down as a "slippery slope" argument.

It's great that you get to go to all 50 states as a LEO. But here I am, having to still get background checks and I can't drive beyond the state line. It just doesn't seem right. This is why we either need constitutional carry or reciprocity. If I want to travel out of state I need to have a pile of non-resident licenses. Not everyone wants to carry and I get that, but it's worthless to me if I have lock it up in the trunk of the car while you don't. The 1986 machine gun ban was one of those crazy middle of the night bills that got squeezed through congress and looking at it now it doesn't make sense. I have never met a machine gun owner yet who wasn't a fervent collector. That's the typical MG owner.

Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 17, 2015, 05:08:30 AM
It's great that you get to go to all 50 states as a LEO. But here I am, having to still get background checks and I can't drive beyond the state line. It just doesn't seem right. This is why we either need constitutional carry or reciprocity. If I want to travel out of state I need to have a pile of non-resident licenses. Not everyone wants to carry and I get that, but it's worthless to me if I have lock it up in the trunk of the car while you don't. The 1986 machine gun ban was one of those crazy middle of the night bills that got squeezed through congress and looking at it now it doesn't make sense. I have never met a machine gun owner yet who wasn't a fervent collector. That's the typical MG owner.

I fully agree and support national reciprocity 100%, especially the stutzman bill backed by GOA (I'm a member) since it recognizes constitutional carry states like VT. I've written my congressman about it and he supports it. LEOSA isn't really a free pass either but it does allow carry in places like NYC and DC. You have to carry concealed unless the state allows open carry, and in NJ qualify twice a year. But it is better than what civilians have and I fully agree everyone should have reciprocity, if not for nothing to prevent more shaneen Allen type incidents.

I'm hoping natl reciprocity can be tacked on to a must pass bill like how we got carry in natl parks through the credit card act.

BTW I do have regular (civilian) CCLs in other states. I want to get the Utah instructor cert but when I change my name.

I'm currently in the process of getting my CT license. The only part that will suck afterwards is that I will not be able to bring the AR and AK to CT since they are banned. I love VT gun laws, literally nothing and yet they do not have crime problems or crazy issues. If you ever come up to MA let me know and I can take you to my club I belong to. Shooting is somehow more fun with another person! besides I always welcome tips and advice on my carry gun.

Quote from: iKate on April 16, 2015, 11:47:34 PM
I hear about shootings in Toronto all the time. A gun ban doesn't really seem to be doing much of anything.

Would you emigrate to Switzerland? Every adult is given a fully automatic gun as part of required military service. Their crime rate seems rather low too. Not saying it's the guns that cause the low crime rate, just that the two really aren't related.

Sure, Toronto has shootings. Just like anywhere else. It's proper population is greater than that of Paris. Toronto has one of the lowest homicide rates in North America, which is about 26 times lower than Detroit and 10 times lower than Atlanta. Gun bans are greatly effective, while not solving the whole problem.

I would absolutely emigrate to Switzerland. Only adult men between 20 and 30 are given such guns, and carry them unloaded while travelling. They mostly leave them in their houses. In addition, civilians wishing to carry a gun must state a specific reason for wanting a gun, must prove they have the required skills and knowledge of the related laws, and permits are normally only given to those who work in security or military.

In any case, the statistics on gun-related incidents prove that their system is working.

Quote from: ChloëAri on April 17, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
Sure, Toronto has shootings. Just like anywhere else. It's proper population is greater than that of Paris. Toronto has one of the lowest homicide rates in North America, which is about 26 times lower than Detroit and 10 times lower than Atlanta. Gun bans are greatly effective, while not solving the whole problem.

I would absolutely emigrate to Switzerland. Only adult men between 20 and 30 are given such guns, and carry them unloaded while travelling. They mostly leave them in their houses. In addition, civilians wishing to carry a gun must state a specific reason for wanting a gun, must prove they have the required skills and knowledge of the related laws, and permits are normally only given to those who work in security or military.

In any case, the statistics on gun-related incidents prove that their system is working.

Then how do you explain Vermont and Utah which have high rates of gun ownership and concealed carry? Machine gun laws are also pretty lax. Vermont has no permit required to carry, they don't even issue one. You can just carry. VT and UT are pretty low down on the scale of crime, particularly violent crime.

Vermont is a northern state bordering Canada, and northern states except for Michigan (due to Detroit) don't seem to be as much of an issue. I'm not fully sure about Utah. To be honest, I think it's more of a mental thing than anything. It's the "Bible Belt" states that intimidate me. I've collectively spent around 2 months in California and loved each time I went; especially San Diego (which is a very safe large city). The Bible Belt states may not necessarily be more unsafe, but that's just the mental part I guess.

Shows like "Doomsday Preppers" (I think that's what it's called) don't help. There was an episode where this guy built an underground bunker and when they were doing a simulation of a "dommsday" scenario the grandfather was like "everyone put guns in this bin" and like, each of the teens had like 1 or 2. Even the 11 year old girl had one and it was just so shocking for me.

That was in Texas though by the way.