Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
Dec 4th 2008, 11:17 am
#286
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica,CA from Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,402
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
Another unbiased viewpoint from a potential army person
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showp...86&postcount=1
Just curious how much time you have actually spent living and working in the States?
Dec 4th 2008, 12:24 pm
#287
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,237
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
I've consistently wondered, like many intelligent people, what the original founders were thinking when they included the phrase about 'a well regulated militia' (especially the 'well regulated' part). ABY has given his interpretation above; I'm genuinely interested to hear the interpretation of others here. What I have said about the 2nd amendment (and continue to believe as fact) is that it certainly does not preclude ANY restrictions on the ownership, and the SC has reviewed restrictions and allowed them (possession of a firearm by a felon, for example). Restrictions such as waiting periods, background checks, certain types of weapon, and so on are also in existence (not sure if these were reviewed by SC or not).
Dec 4th 2008, 12:34 pm
#288
Septicity
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
I think Texas and the military will be just right for him. Love to be a fly on the wall as a 41-year-old is doing basic training, though! Perhaps one of those security guards at Target might be better -- you still get a swanky uniform, a pair of cuffs and a can of mace. And I'm pretty sure there'll be an employee discount, too!
Dec 4th 2008, 12:40 pm
#289
Sursum corda
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, GA USA
Posts: 38,860
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
I've consistently wondered, like many intelligent people, what the original founders were thinking when they included the phrase about 'a well regulated militia' (especially the 'well regulated' part). ABY has given his interpretation above; I'm genuinely interested to hear the interpretation of others here. What I have said about the 2nd amendment (and continue to believe as fact) is that it certainly does not preclude ANY restrictions on the ownership, and the SC has reviewed restrictions and allowed them (possession of a firearm by a felon, for example). Restrictions such as waiting periods, background checks, certain types of weapon, and so on are also in existence (not sure if these were reviewed by SC or not).
Dec 4th 2008, 12:53 pm
#290
Carmel Indiana
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Naperville, IL
Posts: 749
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
I've consistently wondered, like many intelligent people, what the original founders were thinking when they included the phrase about 'a well regulated militia' (especially the 'well regulated' part). ABY has given his interpretation above; I'm genuinely interested to hear the interpretation of others here. What I have said about the 2nd amendment (and continue to believe as fact) is that it certainly does not preclude ANY restrictions on the ownership, and the SC has reviewed restrictions and allowed them (possession of a firearm by a felon, for example). Restrictions such as waiting periods, background checks, certain types of weapon, and so on are also in existence (not sure if these were reviewed by SC or not).
It refers to a well regulated militia, and the right of the People to bear arms - but does it require the People to be a part of said militia???
Last edited by paul1968mcr; Dec 4th 2008 at 12:55 pm.
Dec 4th 2008, 1:35 pm
#291
Sursum corda
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, GA USA
Posts: 38,860
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It refers to a well regulated militia, and the right of the People to bear arms - but does it require the People to be a part of said militia???
It refers to a well regulated militia, and the right of the People to bear arms - but does it require the People to be a part of said militia???
Dec 4th 2008, 1:44 pm
#292
Professional Drama Queen
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,061
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It refers to a well regulated militia, and the right of the People to bear arms - but does it require the People to be a part of said militia???
It refers to a well regulated militia, and the right of the People to bear arms - but does it require the People to be a part of said militia???
A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State.
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Last edited by Songbird; Dec 4th 2008 at 1:50 pm.
Dec 4th 2008, 2:08 pm
#293
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,237
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
While I personally question the meaning of the 'well regulated militia' part, I'm willing (as I've said many times) to accept the right of individuals to own a handgun for self-defense. What I'm in favor of is a good deal of regulation and restriction to ensure that's all they are used for. So I just read up on the details of the recent SC 5-4 decision.
This is from a NY times article:
This is from a NY times article:
“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia said, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons would be upheld, and suggested somewhat less explicitly that the right to personal possession did not apply to “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not typically used for self-defense or recreation.
Here's a link to a more in-depth article, and here's a link to the part I like, which is the dissenting opinion presented by John Paul Stevens. The opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons would be upheld, and suggested somewhat less explicitly that the right to personal possession did not apply to “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not typically used for self-defense or recreation.
"Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only;... "
Certainly a close and hotly contended ruling; time will tell how it goes next time.
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only;... "
Last edited by Steerpike; Dec 4th 2008 at 2:16 pm.
Dec 4th 2008, 2:33 pm
#294
Not living a 9 to 5 life
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,061
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
Any constitutional law experts out there? Any wannabe constitutional law pundits want to chip in?
Time to get out the popcorn I think.
Time to get out the popcorn I think.
Dec 4th 2008, 2:38 pm
#295
Peace onion
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 5,686
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
I was happy to debate with you until you accused me of trolling. That's a somewhat serious charge. But I'll let it go ... 
Which specific question am I ignoring - sorry, there are quite a few! OK, I've just reread several pages ... the question about registration? I thought I'd answered that in other replies. I believe that a comprehensive program that included registration of all purchases and subsequent transfers would, in the future, lead to a condition where we could know where 'all' guns are. This comprehensive program would include technology not-yet-invented to trace all guns. A lofty goal I agree; but like I said, we put a man on the moon and we can trace a $4 bag of salad back to the day/shift/facility it was packed in Mexico, so I'm sure we can do it if we set our minds to it.
Tell me if you believe the following to be a true statement of affairs; I'm trying to separate facts from opinion and state both sides equally.
Fact: this country has the highest incidence of gun violence in the western world and also has the highest incidence of gun ownership in the western world.
My opinion: I believe the two are related. I believe that greater controls of ownership would help reduce the incidence of violence.
Octang's opinion: greater controls on ownership would impact a citizen's right/ability to fight a tyrannical government. Specifically, any attempt to 'know' who has guns would defeat the purpose of having a gun since the government would use that information to confiscate guns if they were indeed planning to be tyrannical.
In conclusion, I believe the issue of a tyrannical government is less of an issue than the issue of getting the high incidence of gun violence under control, while Octang feels the opposite is true.
===============
To answer the question of 'inspection'. Inspection of basic guns is pretty pointless, although I did read about really cheap ones that are 'marginal' - the 'saturday night specials', etc. Inspection of more complex guns may be more relevant to maintain their safety; however, my main point when mentioning 'inspection' was the inspection of locks and safety devices etc. Now, since starting these debates on this forum, I've learned that many people, when talking about 'locks' and 'safety devices' are talking about devices to prevent accidental firing when dropped, or simple locks (more like a 'latch') to prevent casual pulling of the trigger. I'm personally in favor of a real 'lock' on the trigger - one that would prevent its use without a key, to prevent children from being able to pick up a gun and discharge it. If that proves impractical, I'm in favor of a requirement to lock guns securely when in the home, in a cabinet/etc. I don't have an answer to how you enforce this; I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
Which specific question am I ignoring - sorry, there are quite a few! OK, I've just reread several pages ... the question about registration? I thought I'd answered that in other replies. I believe that a comprehensive program that included registration of all purchases and subsequent transfers would, in the future, lead to a condition where we could know where 'all' guns are. This comprehensive program would include technology not-yet-invented to trace all guns. A lofty goal I agree; but like I said, we put a man on the moon and we can trace a $4 bag of salad back to the day/shift/facility it was packed in Mexico, so I'm sure we can do it if we set our minds to it.
Tell me if you believe the following to be a true statement of affairs; I'm trying to separate facts from opinion and state both sides equally.
Fact: this country has the highest incidence of gun violence in the western world and also has the highest incidence of gun ownership in the western world.
My opinion: I believe the two are related. I believe that greater controls of ownership would help reduce the incidence of violence.
Octang's opinion: greater controls on ownership would impact a citizen's right/ability to fight a tyrannical government. Specifically, any attempt to 'know' who has guns would defeat the purpose of having a gun since the government would use that information to confiscate guns if they were indeed planning to be tyrannical.
In conclusion, I believe the issue of a tyrannical government is less of an issue than the issue of getting the high incidence of gun violence under control, while Octang feels the opposite is true.
===============
To answer the question of 'inspection'. Inspection of basic guns is pretty pointless, although I did read about really cheap ones that are 'marginal' - the 'saturday night specials', etc. Inspection of more complex guns may be more relevant to maintain their safety; however, my main point when mentioning 'inspection' was the inspection of locks and safety devices etc. Now, since starting these debates on this forum, I've learned that many people, when talking about 'locks' and 'safety devices' are talking about devices to prevent accidental firing when dropped, or simple locks (more like a 'latch') to prevent casual pulling of the trigger. I'm personally in favor of a real 'lock' on the trigger - one that would prevent its use without a key, to prevent children from being able to pick up a gun and discharge it. If that proves impractical, I'm in favor of a requirement to lock guns securely when in the home, in a cabinet/etc. I don't have an answer to how you enforce this; I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
That said, let me honestly answer your questions, SP.
(Trolling is not a serious charge, in my book.)
I agree with all your points, Steerpike. The US probably does have the highest rate of violence in the Western world that involves guns. That said, the US has a big population. It also has a lot of poverty and drug use, a community where most of the violence involving firearms occurs.
You hit it right on the head when you described our positions regarding gun control and the ability to resist a tyrannical government. Again, I agree with you that we weight these issues differently.
I appreciate your candid answer on "inspections", and naturally our opinions on registration differ because of our perception on what is the more insidious threat.
I think the notion of an armed citizenry has had a profound effect on the undeniable success of the United States. There's a mindset here that is seldom seen in other, lesser countries. If the Constitution and, importantly, the 2nd amendment didn't exist, this country would be another United Kingdom. Not a bad place, but I live here, not there, for a reason.
I'll ask one more question and address this to all of you who oppose firearms in the hands of private citizens. I believe in the ideals espoused by the French. Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood.
I'm not a class warrior, but I am radical egalitarian. I wholeheartedly believe in the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I froth at the mouth at when I see a ruling elite/oligarchy/whatever you want to call it, dictating to the common man on how we should live. I utterly despise hypocrisy and have a visceral reaction when people in power promulgate decrees and constraints on the "little people", while they themselves do not abide by these restrictions. Seriously, I *abhor* these people.
So, I challenge people on this forum to be intellectually honest in this question. How do you feel about the elite in this country (politicians, celebrities etc.) being outspoken in their advocacy of restricting the ability of the little people to defend themselves, their families and property, with firearms, while hypocritically affording themselves these fundamental rights?
****ing **** hypocrites like Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) oppose your right to carry a gun, while carrying their own. THEY HAVE CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS! Rosie O'Donnell is another hypocrite in the same vein. Somehow, these ****ers are "special" and the rules don't apply to them.
My challenge to you is to agree with me, and denounce their flagrant hypocrisy, the biggest crime a human can commit.
Last edited by Octang Frye; Dec 4th 2008 at 2:43 pm.
Dec 4th 2008, 2:44 pm
#296
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica,CA from Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,402
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
While wearing fatigues and a balaclava and scoping out the local school or university ready for your early morning rampage. Oh how they'll pay for not putting you on the football team and that bitch cheerleader rejecting my invite to the prom. Oh yes, how they will pay
Dec 4th 2008, 2:45 pm
#297
Peace onion
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 5,686
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
Steerpike, what you're describing are trigger locks. Every gun I've bought came with one. They also have cable locks which typically go through the receiver.
Dec 4th 2008, 2:46 pm
#298
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica,CA from Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,402
Dec 4th 2008, 2:51 pm
#299
Peace onion
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 5,686
Re: Buying a gun when I am a permanent resident.
While wearing fatigues and a balaclava and scoping out the local school or university ready for your early morning rampage. Oh how they'll pay for not putting you on the football team and that bitch cheerleader rejecting my invite to the prom. Oh yes, how they will pay
Answering your previous question, no, I have never been in combat. But I've never had a negligent discharge either (like Tony Blair's "highly trained" bodyguard. I have never left my firearm in a Starbucks, like I read some SO19 schmuck does every month in the UK.)
In the event of a tyrannical government, I would be a fifth columnist. I would also snipe from the rooftops. I'm sure it's traumatic to kill a person, but it's more traumatic to let a beloved country die.
You realize what the Resistance achieved in France? Or the VC in Viet Nam? Vastly outgunned, who ultimately prevailed? Better to die on your feet than on your knees. Surely you can appreciate that, my theatrical friend!
