Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Appeals court refuses to permit DC's stringent concealed carry law

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BadDaddy View Post

    So you don't think there should be any infringement or restriction on arms? Bazooka's, machine guns, chain guns, depleted uranium bullets, anything goes?
    The sensible persons defining limits on the 2nd amendment usually draw the line where the possession of an item poses a public danger just by being the "item".

    Therefore, dynamic materials (explosives), hazardous materials (chemicals, radioactive materials, biological materials), and weapons that take an high level of training (machine guns, chain guns, fighter jets), are usually the ones that are prohibited under any interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    In other words, the argument that the 2nd amendment includes nuclear weapons just because a court allows a person to carry a personal firearm is just plain stupid.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

      The sensible persons defining limits on the 2nd amendment usually draw the line where the possession of an item poses a public danger just by being the "item".

      Therefore, dynamic materials (explosives), hazardous materials (chemicals, radioactive materials, biological materials), and weapons that take an high level of training (machine guns, chain guns, fighter jets), are usually the ones that are prohibited under any interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

      In other words, the argument that the 2nd amendment includes nuclear weapons just because a court allows a person to carry a personal firearm is just plain stupid.
      Agreed 100%. But all arguments will be pulled out trying justify limits on personal firearms.
      Yes, some training is needed in order to properly and safely use a hand gun. But then the same can be said for a bicycle. What, they gonna ban bikes? Or are they gonna say kids MUST take a bicycle safety class to ride it in their parent's driveway?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Belva View Post

        Agreed 100%. But all arguments will be pulled out trying justify limits on personal firearms.
        Yes, some training is needed in order to properly and safely use a hand gun. But then the same can be said for a bicycle. What, they gonna ban bikes? Or are they gonna say kids MUST take a bicycle safety class to ride it in their parent's driveway?
        Well, we require special training and licenses for operating motorcycles, airplanes, race cars, etc.

        You can buy any of these simply by writing the check, but you aren't allowed to operate them without showing that you have the requisite training and skill set.

        We let kids fire BB/AirSoft guns, though, without any special training requirement (leave it up to the parents).

        Where is it reasonable to draw the line? How much do we need to protect ourselves from ourselves, and where is the potential for third-party damage/injury great enough to warrant prior restraint?

        Keep in mind that there are over 100,000 legally owned machine guns - automatics - in private hands in the United States. In the last 80 years, they have collectively committed only two violent crimes, and one of those was committed by a cop. Thus, it is clear that training and licensure works to limit risk, even when contemplating items that have potential for causing extreme damage.

        This might lead an intelligent person to believe that training and proper background checks are the single most effective counter-action to the perceived threat of high-performance firearms.

        Bans, OTOH, have never worked, and never can in a nation as large and diverse as the US.
        "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

          Well, we require special training and licenses for operating motorcycles, airplanes, race cars, etc.

          You can buy any of these simply by writing the check, but you aren't allowed to operate them without showing that you have the requisite training and skill set.

          We let kids fire BB/AirSoft guns, though, without any special training requirement (leave it up to the parents).

          Where is it reasonable to draw the line? How much do we need to protect ourselves from ourselves, and where is the potential for third-party damage/injury great enough to warrant prior restraint?

          Keep in mind that there are over 100,000 legally owned machine guns - automatics - in private hands in the United States. In the last 80 years, they have collectively committed only two violent crimes, and one of those was committed by a cop. Thus, it is clear that training and licensure works to limit risk, even when contemplating items that have potential for causing extreme damage.

          This might lead an intelligent person to believe that training and proper background checks are the single most effective counter-action to the perceived threat of high-performance firearms.

          Bans, OTOH, have never worked, and never can in a nation as large and diverse as the US.
          I do hope you saw the sarcasm in my post.
          Where do you draw the line? And BTW aren't you one who would like to see LESS gov't? Why should we have any more training? I mean there are probably people who want training courses before someone can buy a knife. Too much gov't is too much gov't is too much gov't.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Hoddy View Post
            I've never been so paranoid that I felt the need to carry...
            You've probably never owned or managed a business before either... people who do often have to take fairly large sums of money to the bank for the daily deposits, and sometimes want to have a means of protecting themselves from the sorts of people who may want to threaten their lives in the course of robbing their business.

            Wanting to protect yourself and your loved ones, whether you're in your home, at your business, or on the way to the bank, is not paranoia - and fortunately, it's an individual right, as adjudicated by the SCOTUS and spelled out in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights - just like the right of free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to not be required to testify against yourself or to be forced to house troops against your will during peacetime.
            **********

            "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."

            - George Carlin

            "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."

            - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

            "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."

            - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Belva View Post
              I do hope you saw the sarcasm in my post.
              Where do you draw the line? And BTW aren't you one who would like to see LESS gov't? Why should we have any more training? I mean there are probably people who want training courses before someone can buy a knife. Too much gov't is too much gov't is too much gov't.
              Well, I agree generally (as you well know). I think that I draw the line where someone acquires the capacity and reasonable likelihood/risk of hurting others or causing significant property damage.

              I certainly want licensing requirements for someone to fly an airliner, perform neurosurgery, or pilot a supertanker. Not sure I think a license is needed for a .22 rifle or small-bore handgun, though.

              Full-auto? Yes, do a deep background check and prove proficiency - but absolutely allow ownership for people who prove that they are sane, responsible and competent with the operation of the weapon.
              "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

                Well, we require special training and licenses for operating motorcycles, airplanes, race cars, etc.

                You can buy any of these simply by writing the check, but you aren't allowed to operate them without showing that you have the requisite training and skill set.

                We let kids fire BB/AirSoft guns, though, without any special training requirement (leave it up to the parents).

                Where is it reasonable to draw the line? How much do we need to protect ourselves from ourselves, and where is the potential for third-party damage/injury great enough to warrant prior restraint?

                Keep in mind that there are over 100,000 legally owned machine guns - automatics - in private hands in the United States. In the last 80 years, they have collectively committed only two violent crimes, and one of those was committed by a cop. Thus, it is clear that training and licensure works to limit risk, even when contemplating items that have potential for causing extreme damage.

                This might lead an intelligent person to believe that training and proper background checks are the single most effective counter-action to the perceived threat of high-performance firearms.

                Bans, OTOH, have never worked, and never can in a nation as large and diverse as the US.
                There is no training or special license required to own automatic weapons. A slightly more stringent BC, $200 tax stamp and a fatter wallet is all.

                UBCS are a good idea and would likely help a little, though they need to make local LEO do BCS and not force people to pay a 3rd party. The ATF doing well publicized stings on private sellers would also help. Why they don't do under cover buys that obviously shouldn't be done is beyond me.

                Nationwide reciprocity should also happen, I just got back from Maine where I was hunting moose. The guide wanted the rest of his fee in cash and a lot of the butchers prefer cash so I was carrying a fairly large amount I would have been carrying if it was legal but I had to go through NY and Mass. so no go.

                On a side note the hunt was a success, plenty of moose meat in the freezer now.
                Last edited by NOS68; 09-29-2017, 11:01 PM.

                Comment













                Working...
                X