Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[carebear]

You really do make a good point with regard to not forcing one set of values on others, my main problem is the idea that some people seem to deny the nature of a gun. It is an inherently dangerous tool. Most reasonable people agree that the car, another dangerous tool, shouldn't be used unless certain criteria is met. Obviously, the car takes more training and skill to use appropriately, but why can't we agree that guns should only be owned by those that have gone through the proper training and licensed? Just as driving a car, age and maturity should be part of the criteria.

fftopic: My largest frustration comes from the idea that compromise is a bad thing. A nation of 300,000,000 must have compromise or we have no unity.

Gun owners have done nothing but compromise, remember, we started out with no restrictions whatsoever on ownership and now we have all sorts of laws about purchase, transport and carry with more being asked every day by folks who are on record stating they want nothing less than an absolute ban on private ownership.

As far as car parallels go... We don't require training or licensing to OWN a car, we don't even require them to DRIVE a car, we simply require them to drive a car on a public roadway.

So why not require training or licensing to carry a gun in public?

Because Vermont and Alaska demonstrate that banning non-prohibited persons from carrying without training or permit causes no increase in crime or accident. The states that offer shall-issue permits (permit cannot be denied to a non-prohibited person) without a training requirement also support that supposition.

If training and permitting doesn't quantifiably add to safety, and, albeit counter-intuitively, it doesn't seem to; then requiring it is a waste of time and money.

 

[carebear]

Apparently, my opinion of the Second Amendment mirrors that of the United States Supreme Court. The last time the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Second Amendment in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) the Supreme Court took the position that the purpose of the Second Amendment was just as it is written.

From the Opinion:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158"

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

That pretty much lays to rest the idea that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is meant to be absolute. At least, until such time as the Supreme Court agrees to hear another Second Amendment case and reverses the position.


Cheers,
Tom

Actually Tom, that isn't what that means.

Go back and reread the DC Court's opinion in Parker, or Levinson's "The Embarassing Second Amendment" for how the ruling in Miller applies vis a vis the individual right.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

What you are attempting to do is recreate something called the "collectivist" position, which is both recent and discredited among serious Constitutional scholars.

 

[Lincsong]

I heard on the radio today that a 17 year old and his mother were at an Arby's drive-thru in Lousiana and some guy pulled a gun on them and tried to take the car. The 17 year old grabbed the gun and shot the would be assailant in the face and leg. :eusa_clap So much for the thought that by having a gun for protection might lead to it being used on the rightful owner.

But, what gets me is that the Police Chief said "well, we don't encourage that behaviour, people should let the thief have car":rage:

 

[carebear]

And I never said the right is absolute, any more than any other right is absolute.

What I'm saying is that infringements of the right to keep and bear arms need to be held to the same level of legal scrutiny as any other right.

That would be "Strict Scrutiny" which requires there be a provable compelling societal interest in the infringement and that such infringement be as narrowly tailored (limited) as possible to achieve that goal.

Since few of the restrictions, existing or proposed, on ownership and carry (beyond the existing restrictions on felons, the insane and the underage) have documentation to support they will do anything at all in terms of additional societal safety and they, in fact, are usually not narrowly tailored to infringe the least amount possible, I have a real problem with being told I'm the one being "unreasonable".

The science, and the law, and the history is on my side.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Actually Tom, that isn't what that means.

Go back and reread the DC Court's opinion in Parker, or Levinson's "The Embarassing Second Amendment" for how the ruling in Miller applies vis a vis the individual right.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

What you are attempting to do is recreate something called the "collectivist" position, which is both recent and discredited among serious Constitutional scholars.

Actually, I'm not trying to recreate something called the "collectivist" position, I'm simply saying that the Supreme Court's decision is that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. I repeat, I do not believe the Founding Fathers, who took the time to carefully craft their words, intended to insert any hidden meanings.

When it comes down to it, the only "interpretations" of the Constitution that matters in this country are the ones made by the United States Supreme Court.

Be that as it may, I never said I wanted a ban on owning or carrying handguns. Even if a ban were enacted, there are enough weapons in peoples houses that can be stolen to supply the criminals for years, if not decades. Apparently some seem to think that somehow addressing the root causes of violence in our society threatens that right, or perhaps they are afraid that if it's successful they won't have a "valid" reason for carrying a weapon against the small chance they may be robbed or attacked. I find it astonishing that there are those here who seem to think that owning and carrying a gun automatically confers upon the owner a sense of maturity, responsibility, and a high regard for safety and that no one that owns a gun could ever do anything stupid like use it to end an argument. A simple Google search can prove otherwise.

I am sincere in saying that I would feel more at risk if everyone was carrying a gun than I feel I am now when I go out. Fortunately, I don't think that is something that will happen any time soon. If it does in my lifetime I will probably get a gun and carry it on my person--not because I'd be afraid of robbery, but because I'd be afraid of the lowest common denominator getting mad at some imagined slight and pulling their gun because it was handy. And for those who insist such things don't happen, again, just do a Google search. They do. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not the gun was owned legally in such matters--it would have been used either way.

Even if somehow all illegally owned guns were go magically be made to disappear and only so-called "law-abiding" citizens had them, there would still be deaths in which the gun was the weapon of choice. There would still be accidental deaths. People of all ages will continue to be injured or die by gunshot wounds as long as there are guns. That is indisputable. It is also, in this country, a perfectly acceptable price to pay. But those illegally owned guns won't go away, and will continue to be used in violent crimes and replenished out of the homes of gun owners. That, too, is an acceptable price to pay.

So carry your guns if you feel unsafe without them. Enjoy your hobby of target shooting, or collecting, or whatever else you do with your guns. That's your decision. Have fun... but don't expect me to want to do the same. You see, I have the right to not own or bear arms. I even have the right to disagree with those who insist it's a Constitutional right that cannot be infringed, thanks to the First Amendment (which itself is not absolute) and the findings of the US Supreme Court.

Cheerio,
Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

One last observation: I do wish the AMA had the membership numbers and political clout as the NRA!

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

And one last request...

Since you (the collective you, i.e., gun owners) are the primary source of guns for criminals, we non-gun owners would appreciate it if you would keep your guns locked up when you're not using them or they're not on your person. It's a bit ironic that many gun owners carry guns for self protection from gun-wielding criminals, when it's the gun owners themselves who are providing the guns (albeit not voluntarily) in the first place! (Not counting guns stolen or purchased through other sources, of course.)

Thanks!
Tom

 

[Harp]

As I briefly touched upon this thread earlier and have followed it to
some extent, please let me add that constiutional interpretation is
a continuous process, which the Founders well understood.
The US Supreme Court in Miller, sustained registration under
the National Firearms Act, as pertained a sawed off shotgun; however,
Miller does not proceed further in what was a limited ruling.

The Federalist Papers is considered the authoritative source for
the US Constitution and original intent; and frankly supports the
individual right to bear arms.

 

[carebear]

Tom,

We can get along after all. See, gun owners don't want to force anyone to do anything except stop attempting to add more restrictions that cannot be shown to do any good.

The only "forcing of beliefs" on anyone is by those who have stated their goal is to disarm the law-abiding regardless of the Constitution or actual criminological studies.

Please continue to not own or carry a gun, as you say, it's your right and I support it wholeheartedly, all I ask is the same consideration in return.

Matthew

 

[John in Covina]

And one last request...

Since you (the collective you, i.e., gun owners) are the primary source of guns for criminals, we non-gun owners would appreciate it if you would keep your guns locked up when you're not using them or they're not on your person. It's a bit ironic that many gun owners carry guns for self protection from gun-wielding criminals, when it's the gun owners themselves who are providing the guns (albeit not voluntarily) in the first place! (Not counting guns stolen or purchased through other sources, of course.)

Thanks!
Tom

**************

My friends gun safe was stolen, the criminals put a chain around it and ripped it out of the floor by pulling it with a car or truck of some kind. The chain went out the window to the vehicle.

 

[John in Covina]

Chip McCormick makes a special set of grips and screws that can make for a thinner grip section, if the grip is too big that could make a difference.

I took off the arched mainspring housing. An arched one just makes the gun want to slip itself out of my hand. The flat one is better. This is just a bad spot on the grip for me. Something about it just don't jibe with my palm. The front part of the grip is fine (though I could stand to have the trigger near a half inch longer!!! If it were about where the front of the triggerguard bow is, that would be about right! ) Ed Brown does a "bobtail" job that whacks off the bottom corner of the butt, and installs a new, chopped corner mainspring housing...kind of making it into a "round butt" gun. I believe something like that would work for me, allowing my hand to get around behind the grip, and more importantly, stay there. I don't know that I like the looks of the thing, though. I also don't know if it really would prove that much better for me. The flat housing is definitely better than the arched one, and I can hold and shoot with comfort, it's just that it is not nearly so growing-out-of-your-hand natural feeling to me as a properly gripped S&W revolver.

I don't shoot the thing much either, which, of course, makes a difference!

I'm going outside tomorrow and burning through a few moon clips in my big Smith....which I can reload faster than the 1911! Who needs an automatic? lol


This is the age of the 1911. You can get anything, and everything you can think of and then some. From the ridiculous to the sublime. Grips, barrels, safeties, sights, hammers, magazine wells, compensators, scope mounts, blued, hard chromed, parkerized, nickeled, powdercoated, laser etched and in just about any color of the rainbow. Most of what is popular now is hardly recognizeable as a 1911.

My "ultimate" .45 auto would be pretty simple. A Colt commander (all steel, of course), with a minor, old fashioned accurizing job, flat housing, long trigger, plain old sights from Kings (I REALLY like the white outline rear, red front!), along with an extended slide stop and maybe the safety, with old fashioned skip-line checkered walnut grips....pretty much what I showed above, but a bit shorter! My late uncle had a Commander when I was a kid in the '70's with skip line checkered grips, which I REALLY liked and that's what I always wanted...

I have a bunch of old Gun Digest books from the '70's, when the custom .45 really started to take off, and this is what I remember as being cool when I was a kid, so I'm kinda stuck in that time period (in more ways than one!). I don't know much about the custom gunsmiths of today, but I know a little bit about Bob Day, Armand Swenson, Pachmayr, and Dick Heinie!

 

[Nathan Flowers]

And this one has run its course. In the interest of moving the conversation along, we're closing it down. I invite you all to to show off your real and replica weapons in the Display Case forum.