DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why We Need a Firearms Ban

If only we approached gun rights in the same manner as voting rights.

I've never had to attend 16 hours of training and being fingerprinted to vote.

Or stand in line with no water provided while you wait.

Point is that silliness exists.

You chose to get a wear and carry permit.

well, I was wrong.

However, I don't know many hunters using 1 handgun to hunt deer at 25 yards or less. Especially when a treestand is usually about 8-10 yards up.

To be effective, they would have to be running around on silent COD style.

I don't care how many you know. You said "you can't be used for hunting." That was incorrrect. That's why I said "incorrect".

I've proven my point. How many people you know that use hand guns is irrelevant. Know the laws and rules, or don't speak about them.

Handguns ARE legal (.357 or larger, with 5" barrels or longer). Bow, compound, straight, or crossbow. Shotgun, with slugs. Rifles - only straight walled cartridges.

You WERE wrong, yet you try the "I don't know many....". Oh, a 357, or larger, is not limited to 25 yds or less, by the way.

correct. I said I was wrong.

I can't wait to see someone running around with a Smith & Wesson S&W500™ S&W .500 Magnum® Revolver

feel free to watch at the 3:51 mark

[video:youtube][/video]

So much wrong with your video.

First, it's a 4" barrel.

Second, he's shooting a hollow point, or, as he calls it, an "expander".

For hunting, 4" barrel is illegal. Needs to be 5" or more.
Second, hollow points are illegal for hunting deer.
Third, this is a video of shooting, not hunting.

Have you ever seen what a 357 with a scope is capable of (in the right hands)? No, you haven't. Thanks for playing.

Heck, in Florida, you don't even need a permit to open carry if you hunting or fishing, and/or on your way to or from said hunting/fishing adventure.

2) 790.25(3) - “Lawful use” authorizes the conceal carry and open carry of firearms while fishing, hunting or camping, or while going to or returning from fishing, hunting or camping.


Wild west, shootouts every day at high noon, downtown.

Classes before you get your voters card might not be a bad idea, better educate voters. Normally I would say this is not a good idea, but with the mis-information and lack of honest, fact based reporting anymore, it almost seems necessary.

That isn't true. I have gone hog hunting in Alabama with a side arm many times. Many people do. Actually, they work better because much of the time you are in heavy brush. Long guns in heavy brush aren't good options.

Why do you insist on being so obtuse? Are you even trying to make some lame claim that everyone who buys a firearm is familiar with handling, storing and firing a weapon? To believe such a thing is naive at best and just trying to make a dumb statement with no basis in truth at worse to instigate trouble. Do you even live among our society? Do you have any idea how many irresponsible people there are that surround you? It appears not.

I certainly think there should be exemptions for veterans and active military who we know have had firearms training. But otherwise pretending that everyone who buys a firearm knows how to handle it defies common sense.



Now consider the number of people who purchase firearms. Not everyone grew up firing weapons or handling weapons. Not everyone grew up hunting. Not even close. Those people are purchasing firearms. They need to have a clue what they're doing.

The idea of "Just buy a gun at the gun shop, walk outside the shop and load up and strap on a pistol" is stupid.

Why do you continue to try and spin and change what I have said?

I have never said that people shouldn't get training. Not once. I have advocated they do.

State mandated training is an arbitrary barrier to the exercise of a right. It is unconstitutional.



Yes, people should get training. Do I need to say it again? I have said it so many times, you ignore it. Mandated training is still, and always will be, designed to be an arbitrary barrier. A right delayed is a right denied.

In regards to military exemption. My sweetie's ex husband was in the Navy. He was an officer and an attorney. He never touched a firearm during his entire career. He is exempt from training because of his military training, which doesn't exist. That is what common sense is. It is a facade, a sham, a sweet nothing whispered in your ear to make you sleep better. Nothing more.

Once again you seem to think that the society we live in means people will get "voluntary training". That's very naive. Like I stated earlier, it's an all or nothing proposition in the world we live in. Common sense and middle ground are no longer a part of the conversation. Either nobody should be "required" to get training or guns should be outlawed.

"Mah rights" is not an excuse to have some accountability and to demand a small amount of responsibility when walking around in public carrying a firearm.

And once again you seem to the the government mandates are there to help. States use mandates to deny. Look at what NY is trying to pivot to. Or NJ, or HI. I am expecting a lot of nonsense out of MD this session.

Rights are rights whether you like them or not. It isn't about some backwoods hick "muh rights" straw argument. People have a very real right to have means to protect their own life. The most efficient tool to do that is firearms. You are naive to think that denying people their rights to self defense due to arbitrary and capricious mandates is anything more than politicians pandering to a base and trying to make themselves, and their donors, feel safer.

Minimum training produces minimum results. The 16 hours I sat in did not have a test at the end. There is no way to ensure anyone learned anything. You are naive to think that people who are forced to do an activity will do it with the same vigor and attention that those doing it voluntarily would do. The shooting requirement was the only objective bit, and it was stated several times before attempted "it is designed for success, everyone in this class will pass it". You could do it with your eyes closed and come close to passing. Mandatory requires like this are barriers to the exercise of a right. They are unconstitutional. I'd rather the "yahoos" you think you are better than have guns then see anyone denied their right to self defense.

Minimum training produces a threshold all must meet. You're just using excuses to circumvent that people have some ability to handle firearms. With rights come responsibility. You're all about the rights without any of the responsibility. Your argument is reckless and you use the constitution as an excuse for it.

Mandated minimums are used as a barrier to exercise of a right. Go look at what NY is proposing as "common sense".

You again try to spin what I have said. People seeking training IS them being responsible. I never once said they should not get training. Please show me where I have said people should not be responsible.

The problem is hoping, thinking and promoting that people get training won't insure that people do. So I certainly didn't mean to twist what you were saying. However what you promote leaves the door open for people not to get that training. Believe me, I'm not saying there are certain states that go too far. But then we get back to the issue of states rights. While I'm certainly not a fan of the extremes some states go to, I can't say that I'm for states rights and then pick and choose. I'm also not saying states don't have the right to allow concealed carry without a permit. Though I'm also not a fan of that either.

I'm not some anti gun nut. I own several firearms. I grew up hunting and target shooting. I know that you too are an avid shooter as well as arch who hunts and target shoots. I have no reason to doubt that is true. I think it would be safe to say that none of us learned anything by taking a CCW course. I know I didn't. But that won't account for the people who need it.

Speaking of barriers. The lack of mandated CCW permits creates a barrier to insure we don't have possibly millions of people walking around carrying a loaded weapon designed to kill people with no idea how to handle it. And no, before you get the idea I'm saying you can't hunt with a revolver that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's very impractical to conceal a revolver you would use to hunt with due to its size and bulkiness. I know I'm not going to be lugging around a Ruger Redhawk for daily protection and I don't know anyone who does. You see, I think everyone who is not a convicted felon has the right to purchase a firearm. The problem becomes when and if they wish to carry that firearm in public. You see that as some barrier to your rights. I see it as a matter of everyone having at least some measure to help insure public safety.

And yes, it's purely anecdotal but I do know two people that fall under exactly what I'm describing. People who went out and bought a gun with the intent to carry that gun who had never fired a gun. No idea what they were doing with a weapon. I'm certainly glad they were required to take that class. I highly doubt they would have gone to that measure just because you promote that they do.

I also feel that the biggest single weapon the left has in trying to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights are opinions such as yours that allows for no basic training to carry a firearm. It's an easy, common sense measure to show that those who promote the 2nd amendment support at least some safety be exercised.

I don't think we're ever going to see this the same way.

You must not get out much during hunting season. These are a fairly common site then.

Keep in mind here the second amendment should bar governments from infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. The fourteenth amendment ensures this right is incorporated to the states as well. States rights are great and wonderful, but we cannot lose sight of individual rights as well. Freedom and liberty was never meant to be safe and cuddly. People exercising their rights can be messy. I'd rather err on the side of freedom and liberty than curtailing that in the false sense of safety. Once you allow governments to dictate access to a right, it is only a matter of how far they will go to remove that right all together.



I never said you were anti-gun. Frankly I am not a "gun nut" either. I enjoy shooting, I believe in being prepared to defend myself but I don't budget a portion of each paycheck simply to buy more guns or ammo. I certainly know people that do.




And yet we see the people who don't care about permits are the same ones that do most of the harm. Permitting does not guarantee safety. It creates a barrier to responsible people. Regardless of the propaganda sold by the Blumbergs and Bradys there is not blood running in the streets or rolling shoot outs in states that have permitless carry. Citizens have to be allowed to be responsible for themselves. The people that aren't going to be responsible aren't deterred by pemits.




When discussing responsibility it is a more than just people should seek the training they need, whatever that is. Different people require different levels of training. It is also the responsibility of action. If you abuse your right, you get to pay the price. For instance it has been illegal to be intoxicated while driving for a long time. There are ad campaigns. There are "stiff" penalties. people still do it. We don't ban alcohol, that was tried and didn't work. We don't ban cars. Simply put you can't legislate moral or good behavior. You can ensure that people who abuse their rights are punished accordingly.

I really don't care what the left tries to use. It doesn't matter. If we acquiesce to demands we lose the rights regardless. If we are scared to exercise our rights because we are afraid they will want to take them away, they are already gone. And to be fair, no matter how much some are given they want more. There are people that won't be satisfied by anything less than a full ban and confiscation. I am not willing to give in.



We won't, but you at least made discussion points without needing to be insulting. I appreciate that.

HOUSTON — Tony Earls hung his head before a row of television cameras, staring down, his life upended. Days before, Earls had pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an ATM in Houston.

Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.

“Is Mr. Earls licensed to carry?” a reporter asked during the February news conference, in which his lawyer spoke for him.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

He didn’t need one, the lawyer replied. “Everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.” A grand jury later agreed, declining to indict Earls for any crime.

The shooting was part of what many sheriffs, police leaders and district attorneys in urban areas of Texas say has been an increase in people carrying weapons and in spur-of-the-moment gunfire in the year since the state began allowing most adults 21 or over to carry a handgun without a license.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-goes-permitless-guns-police-183526824.html

imagine losing your daughter because of a good guy with a gun, and no consequences for the person shooting...

Losing a daughter, a son, a spouse, a parent, a friend - would be beyond traumatic.

A few questions though, which you may not have the answer to, and the article doesn't address: 1. If the thief was running away, the threat was over. To my understanding, if your life or the life of someone is not in imminent danger, i.e. the danger is over - you can't shoot. Maybe it's different in Texas?

2. No criminal consequences, but I'm sure there will be civil consequences, as there should be - based on what I read in the article.
Regardless, someone innocent died - and not just an innocent person, if it makes a difference, but a young child.

"Why We Need a Firearms Ban"

Dead children.

You think kids, and other innocent people, don't die in cities that have basically banned guns?

All those people will turn in their guns as soon as a ban is enacted. 🤪

you think an assault rifle ban wont save children's lives?

Who's talking about assault rifles? Oh, you. Nice way to avoid my question.

I dont have to answer any questions.

You just spoke volumes about you.

I dont know what Texas law allows or doesn't allow. I figured whatever stand your ground law they have was similar to other states, such as Florida. Maybe they do allow for people to apprehend the suspect after the danger is over?

but even if that's the case, i didn't think any law in any states would provide legal cover if someone killed an innocent bystander during the pursuit.

And you just spoke volumes about yourself. How in the actual hell can you even remotely defend open/consealed carry guns when kids are being killed? Evil incarnate.

Agreed. Thanks for the response, unlike baddog

If a so-called good guy with a gun kills one of mine, there will be a second shooting.

Proof of my saying you seem like a violent person.

I suppose it is a good thing you are against carrying of firearms.

I am a very violent person arch, so what? I'm from the alpha male branch.

I'm more against a bunch of idiots killing kids and getting away with it over some BS like "good guy with a gun". A man who kills a child 'by accident' because he thinks he's dirty Harry is no better than a school shooter in my book.

Just quoting your own words.

Quote away.

The stand your ground laws were enacted eliminate the "duty to retreat" provisions in self defense legislation. I don't believe there is anything there that allows one to pursue someone and then shoot them. Like Arch said, once the threat is over, you can't use deadly force.

I have taken several concealed carry classes (Friends who wanted to take the classes but didn't want to go alone), and everyone emphasizes the concept of "avoidance". Be situational aware to remove yourself before it becomes an issue, if in the event, find cover and protect yourself and your loved ones, and only use your firearm as an absolute last resort. The legal issues alone, even if your in the right, will create havoc in your life.

Even if you are justified, it's not like the cop on the scene says, "You're good" and you go about your life. There will be a lot of legal red tape to deal with after the event.