It should be a long process similar to obtaining a pilot's license. This process should include not only training in usage but safety, laws, and history of gun abuse. Ammunitions sales should be highly restricted and documented with good reason similar to prescriptions for drugs. All guns and ammo must be accounted for or the person risks jail time.

2/21/2011 9:54:49 PM

what would the benefit of documenting ammunition be?

2/21/2011 10:04:36 PM

^^unconstitutional much? and what does registering ammunition do? people can still reload their own easy enough, tougher government controls will only hurt law abiding citizens by more than likely creating a large black market for ammunition, easily available to criminals. what about high volume target shooters? just say fuck you to them? and more training... I'm not completely against, but it can't be too restrictive as that would violated the constitution. ensuring any firearm purchaser knowing the law is ok, performance test, ok. but affordability, accessibility, and protection from government intrusion into privacy are huge issues with this.

and as for the posted incident, training could help, but even highly trained (military, police) make the same mistakes. some people are stupid; you can't fix that; "stupid is foreva". and you can't blame the gun - any weapon could be used in that situation leading to a fatality (not IDing your target and comprehending the situation). the tool isn't at fault. and you can't prevent everything. the second amendment exists for a reason and to have the government severely restrict that right is dangerous, against what the constitution stands for, and begins a slippery slope (or continues actually) of doing away with our basic freedoms. just look at history and anti-gun/citizen defense governments/countries - power is continually pushed to the government, people lose freedoms, rights, etc. and eventually revolution comes. arming and empowering one entity by taking from the rest has always been a losing formula for functioning societies. sure, some are doing fine now, but that just means they're on their way to catastrophe.

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2011 10:49:42 PM

Quote :

"what would the benefit of documenting ammunition be?"

Lets say a grandparent wanted to give a gun to his grandson for his 16th birthday. That kind of unaccountability for ammunition is how guns can get into the hands of the wrong people. Every gun control advocate realizes that its impossible to take guns completely off of the street because there will always be an old gun laying around collecting dust in someones attic. Its the ammunition you have to go after. Once old ammunition is shot, it can't be used again.

Quote :

"^^unconstitutional much?"

Not at all and from now on be careful when you throw that phrase around. I'm a constitutionalist. The constitution is and was written to be a living. Thats why there were any amendments in the first place. An amendment by definition is a change for the better and I'm sure nobody would disagree with the first amendment or women's suffrage which was denied by the constitution until fairly recently.

Quote :

"but it can't be too restrictive as that would violated the constitutio"

how so?

Quote :

"just look at history and anti-gun/citizen defense governments/countries - power is continually pushed to the government, people lose freedoms, rights, etc. and eventually revolution comes. arming and empowering one entity by taking from the rest has always been a losing formula for functioning societies. sure, some are doing fine now, but that just means they're on their way to catastrophe. "

Your logic is well thought out but the flaw lies in the fact that historically, gun rights have been to allow the citizens to arm themselves against the government. Thats not happening in today's world unless you were to arm everyone with IEDs, and nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"what about high volume target shooters? just say fuck you to them"

Thats kind of the point. 90% of gun owners don't actually need guns so you could easily weed a lot of those out by making it require a lot of training. Less guns on the street the better.

Its not government intrusion into privacy if you don't have to have it. If I want to become a pilot, work with fissile uranium or detonate a huge explosive device, I have to go through a lot of red tape because those are items capable of harming the public.

2/21/2011 11:30:23 PM

Quote :

"The constitution is and was written to be a living."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

2/21/2011 11:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Lets say a grandparent wanted to give a gun to his grandson for his 16th birthday. That kind of unaccountability for ammunition is how guns can get into the hands of the wrong people"

Quote :

"Its the ammunition you have to go after. Once old ammunition is shot, it can't be used again. "

wrong. anyone can reload their own ammo easy enough. what about imports? the black market you create? why should the government infringe on my right to keep and bear arms and into my privacy? the government shouldn't know certain information, including what guns and ammunition I have. that's basic defense from a government takeover.

what about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote :

" I'm a constitutionalist. The constitution is and was written to be a living."

you're no damn constitutionalist if you think we can say fuck what it says, I want to create a police state so I'll just add amendments to do so. it's meant to be living in as such so that issues such as women's sufferage can be added, not so that the government can take away our basic rights. what if the government decides that another of the right in the BOR is dangerous in some fashion? just let big brother hack away at the document?

Quote :

"gun rights have been to allow the citizens to arm themselves against the government. Thats not happening in today's world unless you were to arm everyone with IEDs, and nuclear weapons."

arming citizens against the government is very important, even in this country. but you don't need IEDs (which by the way, are easy enough to make, hence the name; thus in a revolution, IEDs would be available to any revolutionist", and nuclear bombs (again, other bombs are easy enough). China has been a military threat for years, not for their equipment or technology, but for the number of people/soldiers. same thing in the U.S. in government vs. people. in this case, quantity over quality can win out. and I don't think a gov't would use a nuke on it's own soil... they'd just wipe everybody, including themselves out.

Quote :

"Its not government intrusion into privacy if you don't have to have it. If I want to become a pilot, work with fissile uranium or detonate a huge explosive device, I have to go through a lot of red tape because those are items capable of harming the public."

it is when the constitution clearly states what the right is and what the government can do.

[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 6:40 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2011 6:37:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure nobody would disagree with the first amendment or women's suffrage which was denied by the constitution until fairly recently. "

Such a flawed understanding of how the constitution works and what it does. No wonder you think it should be some living breathing ever changing document.

2/22/2011 7:58:17 AM

Quote :

"Lets say a grandparent wanted to give a gun to his grandson for his 16th birthday. That kind of unaccountability for ammunition is how guns can get into the hands of the wrong people. Every gun control advocate realizes that its impossible to take guns completely off of the street because there will always be an old gun laying around collecting dust in someones attic. Its the ammunition you have to go after. Once old ammunition is shot, it can't be used again. "

lets pretend for a second that the system would work, and people would not be able to trick it and no one would fall through the cracks...

how would accounting for ammo help anything? if anything this just creates more wild goose chases for police as they go investigate why people who spend their time at the range or practicing somewhere else entirely legal are purchasing so much ammo. It is absolutely ineffective at differentiating between people who are using guns legally and illegally and just creates more work for police or whoever is administering and checking those records. it would only even have a chance at being effective if criminals used more ammo than law abiding citizens. Are you claiming this to be true, because to me that seems completely backwards.

In other words, what about tracking ammo purchases would help you find criminals?

in your clarification you seem to be describing making it illegal entirely, is that what you meant?

2/22/2011 6:09:39 PM

Quote :

"you're no damn constitutionalist if you think we can say fuck what it says, I want to create a police state so I'll just add amendments to do so. it's meant to be living in as such so that issues such as women's sufferage can be added, not so that the government can take away our basic rights."

The amendments aren't the problem, and the "living document" thing isn't describing the amendment process. "Living document" is a school of thought in which the Constitution is viewed to be old and outdated, so rather than keeping it up to date via amendments and proper political process, and then adhering to the rule of law, they like to just interpret it (sometimes through some really tortured logic) to be OK with whatever it is they've already decided to do, regardless of the legality.
______

I don't even feel like addressing this anti-ammunition dipshit.

2/22/2011 6:37:00 PM

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/10/4th-endangered-bird-found-shot-to-death/?iref=obnetwork

Quote :

"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention: 1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and 2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states"

2/24/2011 10:10:56 PM

would tracking ammunition have saved that bird?

2/25/2011 9:24:09 AM

...and the truth comes out...

The left hates sporting firearms, too.

2/25/2011 9:50:58 AM

[Edited on February 25, 2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason : John Kerry]

2/25/2011 10:02:06 AM

Some more gun related legislation brewing in the general assembly:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H184v0.pdf

Quote :

"A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1 AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON ELECTED TO A PUBLIC OFFICE IN NORTH 2 CAROLINA OR APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY IN ONE OF THOSE OFFICES 3 WHO HAS A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT MAY CARRY A CONCEALED 4 HANDGUN AND MAY CARRY A POCKET KNIFE ANYWHERE IN THE STATE 5 WHILE HOLDING THAT OFFICE, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY 6 FEDERAL LAW."

3/2/2011 10:13:38 AM

I doubt that will make it through though.

Really, that would probably belong int Fumblers thread in the Lounge over this thread.
That really is getting rid of limitations for the 'elite'. Meaning the people running the state, and really pisses everyone off that they will try and give themselves permission while everyone else won't be allowed.

3/2/2011 10:48:49 AM

Some people are just more equal than others...what can I say?

3/2/2011 10:54:42 AM

If you can't afford the $10,000 handgun license you have no business owning a gun. It's just responsible gun ownership. Common sense. Can you imagine if we allowed cheap guns to be manufactured and sold at cost? Scary. No, this is the correct path. Stringent licensing and high fees to bar ownership.

3/2/2011 11:09:38 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/07/1034779/johnston-tackles-stray-bullet.html

Quote :

"Johnston tackles stray-bullet issue SMITHFIELD -- Johnston County commissioners are considering an ordinance designed to address a growing problem in the area: stray gunfire. Commissioners were first approached to take action in October when residents near Selma complained that their neighbor was carelessly discharging firearms in the direction of their properties. Sheriff's deputies were dispatched several times to investigate claims of reckless gun use at Eddie Jordan's property. Jordan is pastor of Faith Baptist Church and owner of the Second Amendment gun shop in Selma . While he was target shooting, bullets discharged on Jordan's range hit his neighbor's fence and house. Upon further research, Johnston County staff learned that stray bullets have become a nuisance countywide. The Johnston County Sheriff's Office received 527 calls about stray gunfire in 2010 - up from 476 calls in 2009."

Quote :

"Both sides outraged GRNC President Paul Valone has told commissioners that his group will take political action against anyone who votes for the revised ordinance. "We are capable of lighting up their world," Valone has said. "When somebody comes to take your rights, then offers to compromise by taking only half your rights, that's not a compromise. That's a loss." Few spoke publicly in favor of the new rules. But at that Feb. 7 meeting, the crowd heard the experience of one man, who said he couldn't live without stricter laws any longer. "You just wait until your family calls you at work because some fool is firing toward your house ... and your wife calls you from her closet," said Scott Andrews, whose home was the one hit by Jordan's stray bullets. "You just wait until you have to tell your little girl that she can't go play outside ... and sheriffs tell you there's nothing they can do about it.""

3/7/2011 10:21:16 PM

^ how can anyone oppose those ordinances?

They think it should be legal for your stray bullets to enter someone else's property...?

3/7/2011 10:27:46 PM

Seems reasonable to me. You are responsible for every bullet you fire from the moment you pull the trigger until the bullet comes to a stop. That said, it might be nice to see an addition to the law carving out an exemption for self defense cases. You don't always get to choose the time and location you need to defend yourself, and while I would hope all the bullets would stop in the attacker, even the police only hit something like 1 out of 11 shots.

3/7/2011 11:01:23 PM

Unless I'm mistaken, there are already laws/ordinances regarding such situations (i.e., I haven't researched NC/Johnston county lately, but I swore there were already laws/ordinances). That is why I oppose anything new. Use what has already been established, which is more than enough, it just hasn't been enforced yet.

3/8/2011 7:10:13 AM

I actually attended the last referendum for that ordinance and saw that guy tell the story about his house getting shot at on multiple occasions. Believe it or not, the guy from the sheriff's office said there is actually no law in North Carolina that allows them to prosecute the guy for that incident. There were some total BS things in the original amendment, and there's still some dumb stuff in the current revision that's covered by JocCo's noise ordinance anyway, but I don't think there was anyone opposed to the part about holding people responsible for careless and reckless firearms use. That's the one thing that everybody in the room agreed on, gun advocates and opposition alike.

3/8/2011 9:00:23 AM

^^^ the qualification “carelessly and heedlessly” in the current version of the ordinance seems to cover self defense.

^^ you seem to be mistaken.

[Edited on March 8, 2011 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

3/8/2011 9:22:56 AM

the lack of applicable ordinances and laws is why the sherrif's hands are tied and is what the county is trying to fix

as a gun owner and sportsmen i have no problem with ordinances preventing stray bullets as long as they make sense

3/8/2011 10:07:57 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17thu1.html

git r done

3/17/2011 2:09:26 AM

The Obama administration is displaying the biggest ruse while trying to strip all meaning from the Second Amendment. You people that say "Obama isn't trying to take your guns" are outright liars or just stupid. Gun rights are being attacked mostly silently, from multiple angles, and multiple agencies, including those made up of non-elected officials.

1.)

Quote :

"His to-do list omitted banning the big volume ammunition magazines that figured in the Tucson massacre and a long line of other mass shootings. The magazines have no defensible use outside of combat and law enforcement."

Uh, sport, target? And banning them will do what? Prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing; it won't do a damn thing for criminals. When will you idiot lefties figure out that criminals don't follow the law?

2.

Quote :

"Mr. Obama said many state records on disqualifying involuntary commitments or criminal records are not being submitted to the federal background check system."

The failure here is not gun control, gun rights activists, etc. It's the government and their criminal database and reporting. Fix the government system.

3.

Quote :

"“If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else,” the president wrote."

Sounds like a good way to start taking big chunks out of the Constitution. And by the way, the government cannot and never will be able to control that "someplace else". If a criminal wants a firearm, he will get one, regardless of where the government tells law abiding citizens to do so.

3/17/2011 8:09:37 AM

Quote :

"...and the truth comes out... The left hates sporting firearms, too."

Slow down there sparky, I know you're big on swift and low-sample-size generalizations being who you are, but not everybody on the left "hates" firearms or wants to take them away. I'm quite likely one of the top 5 most leftist people on this website and I think it would be ridiculous to take away a normal citizen's right to own a gun in this social environment.

3/17/2011 9:08:21 AM

Tell us more about "this social environment."

3/17/2011 9:28:04 AM

...and who I am, while you're at it.

[Edited on March 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM. Reason : obviously not all leftists hate guns. the point is that even sporting arms aren't unthreatened.]

3/17/2011 10:12:18 AM

at gun oppositions strongest they still were not able to put a dent on sporting arms in most states, so today to still speak of any kind of threat like it is noteworthy is either ridiculous or disingenuous.

3/17/2011 5:27:41 PM

Sporting guns are not important. Nobody needs guns to get food anymore and thats just times changing. Its not so much we want to take away sporting guns as it is having sporting guns is not worth the great risk they pose to human life. Imagine if nuclear reactors were built for fun. That fun wouldn't be worth the risk of a meltdown. Turns out, nuclear reactors are built by necessity. Well people that need guns should have them and people who have no business owning a gun only put extra guns out there that could possibly kill people.

3/17/2011 7:26:18 PM

And what bureaucrat decides who "needs" a gun and who doesn't?

Can the government also decide who "needs" a car and who doesn't as well? If we're going to talk about the probability of someone dying from a car/gun...

3/17/2011 9:48:01 PM

The car is bad but its needed because it gets you to work, gets you to goods and services, the hospital, grocery store, school etc.

3/18/2011 12:03:22 AM

What if you live in a city and are within walking distance of everything you need? Should people in cities not be able to own cars because they endanger the lives of others by needlessly being on the road? Who is the bureaucrat that decides?

3/18/2011 12:35:55 AM

Quote :

"The Obama administration is displaying the biggest ruse while trying to strip all meaning from the Second Amendment. "

you're going to need some examples here, chief

3/18/2011 4:08:43 PM

^^No matter where you live, cars may be needed to get somewhere. It would be ideal that we built a speed train interstate that hit every part of the country and coupled that with commuter rail in every town but until then, cars are necessary. In the future, car licenses will be limited to only those who need cars for business or livelihood.

You also don't understand the fact that cars are not weapons. Cars can kill but are not made to kill. Guns are made to be able to kill whatever is shot.

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM. Reason : weapon vs tool that could be dangerous]

3/18/2011 8:01:25 PM

Quote :

"Its not so much we want to take away sporting guns as it is having sporting guns is not worth the great risk they pose to human life."

Yeah, too bad it's a damned basic right that the gov't can't take away. well, shit.

Quote :

"But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. "

ummmm, source? And how many people have been killed in car accidents since that day?

Quote :

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."

Actually, Mr President, I disagree. We will NEVER be able to do so. Every law made against weapons, unConstitutional laws, of course, simply prevents law-abiding citizens from purchasing weapons, further putting citizens at a disadvantage against criminals.

Quote :

"I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily;"

Actually, no. If he's that unbalanced, then he shouldn't be out and about, roaming the streets.

Quote :

"Imagine if nuclear reactors were built for fun. That fun wouldn't be worth the risk of a meltdown."

Yeah, but it's too bad that the right to build a nuclear reactor is not one guaranteed by our Constitution. well, shit.

Quote :

"Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it."

imagine that, a liberal who wants more gov't power. shocker!

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2011 8:15:11 PM

Quote :

". In the future, car licenses will be limited to only those who need cars for business or livelihood. "

Haha. Comical.

3/18/2011 11:01:14 PM

Quote :

". In the future, car licenses will be limited to only those who need cars for business or livelihood. "

Haha. Comical.

I started to comment on all the other retarded shit you've said just on this page, but then I said "fuck it."

3/18/2011 11:05:30 PM

This seemed somewhat related to pondering the ideas of gun limitations, although rather than acquiring one this is about where you could have or use one:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/nc-not-responding-well-to-new-majority.html

Quote :

"we find that 67% of voters in the state are opposed to a bill being pushed by the GOP that would allow concealed handgun permit holders to bring their weapons into parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. Only 23% of voters think it's a good idea. Democrats are predictably the strongest in their opposition (81%) but majorities of independents (57%) and Republicans (54%) are against it as well. This is an instance where the Republicans in the General Assembly are getting a little ahead even of their own party base, not to mention the electorate as a whole."

3/25/2011 1:44:20 PM

Its not retarded. Retarded literally means slowed down as in not much change. Progressive gun laws are the complete opposite of retarded. Its conservative ideas that are "retarded" in the literal sense because they don't learn to advance into the future. They stay in the 18th century->slowed down.

3/25/2011 2:10:23 PM

You are retarded. In every sense of the word.

3/25/2011 3:44:34 PM

A system in which only the government is allowed to have guns isn't progressive. That takes us back about at least a thousand years. Liberty is progressive.

3/25/2011 5:06:48 PM

4^

I'd venture to say that most of the public hasn't been properly informed of the current firearm laws or this bill.

Secondly, the reasoning of why people don't support it are just as important.

Just because a poll, or people say they want/don't want something doesn't make it a legitimate view. Laws should be based on preserving freedom and all laws should be based on facts; not whims, misconceptions, or because some people didn't care to think things through.

No one has yet to provide a single fact on why law abiding, state certified, citizens shouldn't be allowed to extend their carrying rights to other places of typical public access; many of which are extremely similar to other areas where such rights are not violated.

3/25/2011 6:11:57 PM

Quote :

"we find that 67% of voters in the state are opposed to a bill being pushed by the GOP that would allow concealed handgun permit holders to bring their weapons into parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. Only 23% of voters think it's a good idea. Democrats are predictably the strongest in their opposition (81%) but majorities of independents (57%) and Republicans (54%) are against it as well. This is an instance where the Republicans in the General Assembly are getting a little ahead even of their own party base, not to mention the electorate as a whole."

This is probably because what the majority oppose is not what the law is actually allowing. It's another one of these stupid "magical boundary" laws that seem to pervade modern politics.

What people want to avoid is someone going to a bar, getting drunk and doing something stupid or deadly with their gun. However, saying a CCW owner can't carry in a place that serves alcohol does nothing to stop that.

3/25/2011 6:18:58 PM

^bingo

3/25/2011 6:21:33 PM

these poll results are actually because of the obama administration. i don't know how, but i'm told its true.

3/26/2011 11:46:06 AM