I think there should be strict tests and training when getting a gun. I think we should not allow people who are diagnosed with depression to own guns, and people who have committed crimes to have guns. I am all for strict rules to make sure some wacko doesn't go on a shooting spree. But all in all ithink we should be allowed to have guns.

There are rules, those with mental illness and those that have committed felonies can not purchase guns.

Well then their doing at least one thing right!

First I want to say I have been very impressed by you. You display a great deal of maturity beyond your years. However, you are off here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonador101

and most most criminals care,

---

That's my point, most criminals don't care. If they cared they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonador101

but the fact is we have the right. the right our forefathers gave us, and it would be disrespectful to take it away,thats telling them they made a mistake, when in truth they put it there so it couldn't be taken away, and it shouldn't.

---

Here, again you are wrong. The Court decision was specifric here. It affirned the right of an individual to own a gun to protect their homes. It did NOT affirm any right to carry a gun around.

That's my point, most criminals don't care. If they cared they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. from scott gem


You know criminals they commit the crime cause they think they won't get caught. Andcriminals aren't all sad people who really don't care. Even the ones who do it for a high they don't want to get caught. And really if they are committing a crime. Look I think youi should look up criminal psychology, cause I am pretty sure some of them care if they get caught or not.
Even if they didn't care, that doesn't change the fact that they are committing a crime, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
And crimes DO go down when more civillians have guns. That is a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

There are rules, those with mental illness and those that have committed felonies can not purchase guns.

---

Tell that to the parents of the Va Tech victims! Tell that to the victims of the LIRR killer! Shall I go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonador101

well then their doing at least one thing right!

---

Obviously they are not doing something right. This is a point I tried to make in my first response here. The gun lobby has fought tooth and nail against ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership. The result is that people like the LIRR killer can stay for 2 weeks in a motel near LA and qualify to buy a gun. Or a student who was diagnosed with mental disorders could buy a gun.

I am not against honest, responsible citizens owning guns. But if such people want a gun, I don't see why it's a big deal for them to have to undergo a THOROUGH background check and to show that they have undergone some training in the use of the weapon. After all, you can't get a driver's license without showing some training and cars kill more people than guns.

Look that was a tragic inncident, and I sympethaize this why I feel so strongly about having it be very hard to get a gun. I don't know exactly how he got a gun. But we shouldn't abolish guns, just cause of that.
Look people will make mistakes and no system is perfect but we have to weigh the pros and the cons.

I actually think it would not have mattered either way. Guns are so commonplace today, it would be easier to deport all the illegal aliens than confiscate the guns. There are many other weapons available anyway. It's been proved in Iraq that IED's are as or more effective against an armed force than guns. Zip guns are made with tubing(car antenna, clothespin and tape) The discussion made several valid well presented points. I think the close decision in favor of gun ownership was inevitable. I am saddened by the ease guns are obtained and most guns people have are only meant for killing people. For several reasons, I no longer support the taking of human life as I once did. And hoped that we might be rising above that at some point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonador101

look i think youi should look up criminal psychology, cause i am pretty sure some of them care if they get caught or not.
.

---

I think YOU need to bone up on criminal psychology because I already have. That's why I've posted what I've posted. While, it may be true that, in some places where carry regs are more relaxed, that crime has gone down. I'm not sure there is a direct correlation. There may be other factors that have contributed to the decline.

Look I am ALL for through background checks. And training that is required to be retaken every five or so years. I think it should be really hard to get a gun. I am on the same page with you on that.
And as for the criminal pyc stuff, lets agree to disargree. I mean who really knows what's going through these guys heads anyway.
And I think there is a direct cooralation. It makes sense crimes would go down if everyone has a gun. Not to suggest everyone should have a gun, I mean that's your choice but youi should have the right to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonador101

and as for the criminal pyc stuff, lets agree to disargree. i mean who really knows whats going through these guys heads anyway.

---

Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.

Obviouly, look I'll read some stuff. I guess I shouldn't say stuff without reading up on it first. OK so maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I don't know, I get this feeling that I am at least a little right. But maybe that's just me. Well this disscussion was fun. Man I don't get to voice my oppinions very often. Well, I still believe what I believe. And I'll just keep doing that.

[QUOTE=progunr]Unless it is designated as a State or Federal Park that is.[QUOTE]

Fed Parks and Fish & Game are considering easing the rules so that if you're allowed to carry in the state where the Park/refuge is, you're allowed to carry in the Park. They're taking public comments on this now (I think deadline is June 30). Go to redirect and under proposals for comment, type RIN 1024-AD70 in search box. That will take you to the page so you can put your 2 cents in. (Just realized there's no 'cents' symbol on the keyboard <G>) (link is for regulations.gov)

One of my probs w/ those who thought it was for militia is that Jeferson, for one, didn't like peace-time standing armies, and that's what the militia is now. At one time there were State militias but they were jobbed off to the Fed in late 40s-early 50s (I used to play with Dad's SM helmet).

If you want an organization that fights to keep the 2nd as written but don't want the NRA, try the Second Amendment Sisters. I got one of my fav Ts from them:
Firearms: the ultimate in feminine protection.

I was listening to an interview of a spokesperson for the 'Brady Coalition' who argued that the decision by SCOTUS was a good thing because it did clarify some important issues. I cannot find transcripts of it but basically his argument mirrors what Mark Kleiman ,a liberal professor writes in his blog 'The Reality-Based Community'.
The Reality-Based Community

Quote:

---

With any luck, taking the "gun confiscation" card out of the political pack might actually reduce the fervor of the opposition the NRA can whip up to sensible measures such as requiring background checks for gun sales by private individuals (the current rule that requires them only for purchases from gun dealers), computerizing data on which dealers are selling the guns that get used in crimes, and developing and deploying technology that would allow police to identify, from a bullet or a shell casing found at a crime scene, when, to whom, and by whom the gun that produced that metal was lawfully transferred.

---

Scalia made it clear in his ruling that like the 1st Amerndment the 2nd Amendment is not absolute(and all the Amendments for that matter... word to the Court that just blew the habeas rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield ).This ruling clearly removes indiscrimnate confiscation and also confirms that law enforcement agencies need serious tools with which to track and identify guns used to commit crimes.

This Heller decision is one of the rare great decisions by SCOTUS... rare indeed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.

---

Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, coming from a retired Prison guard with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Tell that to the parents of the Va Tech victims!

---

Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and... you get the idea.

Anyone is capable of becoming a criminal, under the right circumstances, they are not always mentally ill.

I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.

For every statistic presented, the opposing side will always be able to find someone, or some study or form of data to show conflicting views, so again, the ability to prove beyond any doubt that either side is correct in their beliefs will never be possible.

I respect everyone's opinion on this issue, but of course, I believe that I am on the correct side of the debate.

Hello:

At the risk of redundancy, I say again, an armed society, is a polite society.

excon

Although it's a good move to follow the Constitution, they will come up with so many regulations it will confuse the issue. Because thieves take guns from homes to the streets, there will probably be laws as to the size of the weapon as well as a clearance test for the home owner and occupants. Nothing is that simple when it comes to guns. (or anything else by the government)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, comming from a retired Prison gaurd with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.

---

It has nothing to do with being smarter. Just more knowledgeable and better informed. If you notice, I said there are many reasons people commit crimes. That is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that someone committing a crime is going to be deterred by the possibility that his victim or someone nearby is armed. Yes some might, but most would not, especially if they are armed themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and..........you get the idea.I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.

---

Maybe, but more likely it would have just contributed to the bloodbath. Remember most of the victims were young students, not likely to be well trained in using firearms. At least that's my opinion.

And yes, criminals are well known to take the path of least resistance. If presented with two houses, one alarmed and one not alarmed which do you think they will break into?

As to arming everyone, sorry I don't want to live in fear of someone over reacting or getting caught in a crossfire.