Here we go again: HR45 "The Firearm Licensing Act of 2009"

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Ha...yes. To you and I, hoopla over gun licensing and permission seems silly. We've had gun registry laws in Canada for years. The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the US Constitution, so they go nuts when gun control laws are talked about.
I know. Our constitution used to prohibit the citizenship and entry of jews and jesuittes. We got rid of that in 1850, because we saw it was a mistake.

Context is good.

Yup, context is indeed a good thing.

When the constitution was written, there was a revolution eminent, the British crown was in the process of sending troops over the big pund, and in that context, with a new, growing state, there was a need for a well regulated militia to protect the new Nation. In that process, it would be logical to assume that yes, it's a smart thing to let people have guns.

But, times change. We introduced parliamentarism in 1884 (even if the constitution EXCPLICEDLY says that the King should name his cabinet, and there has not been a change in that respect).

And of course, we did prohibit jews and jesuittes. :)
 

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
8,005
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso
ahpadt said:
It's called common sense. Less guns = less violent crimes and dead people.

Actually, that is not how it works. If you take away guns, people will find other ways to hurt others. Look at the UK and knife crime. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are the greatest deterrent to violent crime. How far do you think the Virginia Tech shooter would have gotten if 25% of the students had taken a Concealed Weapon Permit course were licensed to carry a handgun?

ahpadt said:
How many guns do you own?

I actually do not own a single firearm, yet I am staunchly opposed to restricting access. Surprised?

Yup, context is indeed a good thing.

When the constitution was written, there was a revolution eminent, the British crown was in the process of sending troops over the big pund, and in that context, with a new, growing state, there was a need for a well regulated militia to protect the new Nation. In that process, it would be logical to assume that yes, it's a smart thing to let people have guns.

But, times change. We introduced parliamentarism in 1884 (even if the constitution EXCPLICEDLY says that the King should name his cabinet, and there has not been a change in that respect).

And of course, we did prohibit jews and jesuittes. :)

The constitution was written in 1789, with the Bill of Rights added in 1791. The war was over by 1783, with the Battle of Yorktown.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
It's called common sense. Less guns = less violent crimes and dead people.

Most violent crimes do not occur with handguns but rather blunt objects and knifes.

Stare Decisis this question was already ruled on by the Supreme Court. Further more in questioning by the Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy a Democrat Attorney General-designate Eric Holder stated that Gun Regulation was off the table and that he was resigned to upholding the constitutional decisions by the court.
 

phuckingduck

is awesome!
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
3,018
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Car(s)
'03 Volvo S60 AWD
Context is good.



Please note the comma after the Militia part, separating the people from the militia.
Or it could be read as a complete sentence, with a subset added in. I knew this girl, a red head, who was gorgeous. You can read that sentence as either "I knew this girl who was gorgeous", or it can be read as it is written. Personally, I view the 2nd as the right of the citizenry to be armed and free to form a militia. Forming militias does nothing if they aren't armed, so the right to arms is a necessary parallel to the right to form militias. I view this as our last check and balance against our government.

Full disclosure: I am a gun owner.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
How far do you think the Virginia Tech shooter would have gotten if 25% of the students had taken a Concealed Weapon Permit course were licensed to carry a handgun?
How far would he get if he used a knife and students would be able to throw a chair on his head? When a person has a gun, he's out of reach for someone with a chair or a rock.

The constitution was written in 1789, with the Bill of Rights added in 1791. The war was over by 1783, with the Battle of Yorktown.

My bad, as historically interested, I should not have made that mistake.

Anyhoo, the war still in people's minds, and the need for a form of armed force would seem like an important one.
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
However, criminals don't follow the laws on murder, rape and robbery, so you think they will follow the laws trying to get a gun?
Which is why gun control is stupid: if someone is willing to kill with a gun, they're probably willing to steal it. Don't read this as an argument for gun ownership, though.
 
Last edited:

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,689
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
We've had gun registry laws in Canada for years.

And it's FUCKING USELESS AND A GIGANTIC WASTE OF MONEY.

So bad it deserves ALL CAPS.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
One thing I do find interesting is that Norwegian police, who are not armed, use guns less than Swedish police, who are armed. Can't dig up a source just now, but I have it from a couple of police officers themselves. :)

Having guns in their cars though, that's a different matter. In the bigger cities, you can always have guns on the spot in a couple of minutes. Out here where I live, it's harder. Let's say they get to a scene, there's a guy with a gun, they need approval to get the guns, and then they need to wait for the ferry to take them back and forth, that's an hour just in logistics to get guns to the scene.

Therefore, police should have guns in their cars, I believe.
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
Therefore, police should have guns in their cars, I believe.

I do tend to agree. While I believe gun ownership should be restricted to legitimate purposes such as for competition use or hunting (personally I don't think for self-defence is a legitimate need in most circumstances), I do believe that all fully trained police officers should be armed.
 

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
One thing I do find interesting is that Norwegian police, who are not armed, use guns less than Swedish police, who are armed.

The culture of the society plays a big role. Norway and Japan are similar insofar as that in one point of their history, they were a feudal society. And both moved on from that, a case of "so drunk you got sober", and thus a relatively passive culture. We have yet to go through that phase.

To me, the bottom line is this: Here is the U.S., the ones who advocate gun control have never handled a gun, nor never will. That is like sending pacifists to engage in war.
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
Gun laws are not strict enough in the US. If someone feels so scared for their security- or of their own government- to have to carry a deadly weapon with them, something else is wrong with the social situation. Responsible gun use- for emergencies, defence against break-ins, and in "extreme environmental situations" (not my wording) for overpopulation hunting isn't a problem. But a large part of the population carrying around firearms, rather even than knives (difference being that a gun can kill three people in a few seconds) speaks of constant vigilantism. Which is not small government, it's no government.

NO NEG REPS PLEASE
If you have a problem with what I said talk about it. I was not being offensive.
 
Last edited:

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
How far do you think the Virginia Tech shooter would have gotten if 25% of the students had taken a Concealed Weapon Permit course were licensed to carry a handgun?
Considering nobody at that school knew what the fuck was going on both times the kid went on a rampage, even after he was dead, how effective do you really think it would have been to arm 1/4 of the campus?

That's exactly what that situation needed; a crazed college student running around with a bunch of guns, and a bunch more terrified college students... with guns. There's no way that could end badly at all.

defence against break-ins
Actually, it's been proven numerous times that some sort of alarm system is a much better deterrent and defense than a handgun. If someone's actually trying to burglarize your house, which would you rather do... grab your handgun, load it, and ready it (in the dark and being as silent as possible), sneak through your own house, and confront someone at gunpoint when you don't even know where they are, who they are, what they're doing, or what sort of protection they might have against you... or hit a remote button on your nightstand that blares deafening alarms to immediately make them panic and scare them away?

Also, play the first option out in your head, except replace "burglar" with "your child just sneaking downstairs for food".
 
Last edited:

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
One thing I do find interesting is that Norwegian police, who are not armed, use guns less than Swedish police, who are armed.
Am I missing something here or does that statement follow logic so simple that it need not even be mentioned?
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Or it could be read as a complete sentence, with a subset added in. I knew this girl, a red head, who was gorgeous. You can read that sentence as either "I knew this girl who was gorgeous", or it can be read as it is written. Personally, I view the 2nd as the right of the citizenry to be armed and free to form a militia. Forming militias does nothing if they aren't armed, so the right to arms is a necessary parallel to the right to form militias. I view this as our last check and balance against our government.

Full disclosure: I am a gun owner.

I don't even think it's necessary to analyze the text. The fact that it's part of the "bill of rights" implies that it's the rights of the citizenry.

And in case anybody is interested, this is from the "English bill of rights" (1689)

Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
 

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
Gun laws are not strict enough in the US. If someone feels so scared for their security- or of their own government- to have to carry a deadly weapon with them, something else is wrong with the social situation. Responsible gun use- for emergencies, defence against break-ins, and in "extreme environmental situations" (not my wording) for overpopulation hunting isn't a problem. But a large part of the population carrying around firearms, rather even than knives (difference being that a gun can kill three people in a few seconds) speaks of constant vigilantism. Which is not small government, it's no government.

No offense taken. My philosophy is that society should be armed by their own free will, and that Government should terrified of the people, a society that if so wanted to, could tear apart their precious little planet far from reality called bureaucracy and reform it. Call me a Jeffersonian, and you would be correct.

Let's see...a society that was controlled from afar with silly, unjust laws, got fed up with it and kicked their controller's out...where have we seen this before? :think:
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
No offense taken. My philosophy is that society should be armed by their own free will, and that Government should terrified of the people, a society that if so wanted to, could tear apart their precious little planet far from reality called bureaucracy and reform it. Call me a Jeffersonian, and you would be correct.

Let's see...a society that was controlled from afar with silly, unjust laws, got fed up with it and kicked their controller's out...where have we seen this before? :think:

I understand your views, but they can be taken too far- taking away any but the most basic of governmental authority leads to extremism and vigilantism, both of which are subjective and sometimes justified but for the most part are very bad. Even the higher-ranking animals who are considered to have "morals" or at least some sort of social understanding, like wolves and elephants, have some rules which are simply there and wouldn't be revoked even if the whole group "disagreed" with them. Human society, being much more complex, needs many more rules and laws. All that said, I would never believe that a government should dictate beliefs, speech, or other basic freedoms, and I do think Labour has gone much too far.
 

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
It's called common sense. Less guns = less violent crimes and dead people.

How many guns do you own?

Thats not a fair statement. American society is fucked up and that is the reason of voilent crime, guns just facilitate such crime. I'm sure there would be just as many murders in the us without any guns in the country.
 

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
8,005
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso
Considering nobody at that school knew what the fuck was going on both times the kid went on a rampage, even after he was dead, how effective do you really think it would have been to arm 1/4 of the campus?

That's exactly what that situation needed; a crazed college student running around with a bunch of guns, and a bunch more terrified college students... with guns. There's no way that could end badly at all.


I did not say just to hand guns out. I fully believe people who choose to carry should and do have to get a permit for it. With that permit comes a 16 hour class where you receive the same firearms training as the police.

Actually, it's been proven numerous times that some sort of alarm system is a much better deterrent and defense than a handgun. If someone's actually trying to burglarize your house, which would you rather do... grab your handgun, load it, and ready it (in the dark and being as silent as possible), sneak through your own house, and confront someone at gunpoint when you don't even know where they are, who they are, what they're doing, or what sort of protection they might have against you... or hit a remote button on your nightstand that blares deafening alarms to immediately make them panic and scare them away?

Also, play the first option out in your head, except replace "burglar" with "your child just sneaking downstairs for food".

People who use guns for home defense do not keep their weapon unloaded for one thing. An unloaded gun worthless. The second thing is almost no one is going to just blow away the first shadow they see. In the majority of cases, the burglar ends up getting shot when he does not comply with the orders given by the homeowner, usually something easy like "DON'T MOVE".
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
I did not say just to hand guns out. I fully believe people who choose to carry should and do have to get a permit for it. With that permit comes a 16 hour class where you receive the same firearms training as the police.
But my point was that more guns into that equation wouldn't necessarily have solved it. On the contrary, I think terrified college students with guns would have made the situation even more tense, as the shooter wasn't found until the very end, so anyone with a gun could have potentially been the shooter to the police. Or even more likely, you wind up with students-with-guns shooting other students-with-guns because they mistake them for the gunman (whose description, up until he was found, was "a man with a gun").

People who use guns for home defense do not keep their weapon unloaded for one thing. An unloaded gun worthless. The second thing is almost no one is going to just blow away the first shadow they see. In the majority of cases, the burglar ends up getting shot when he does not comply with the orders given by the homeowner, usually something easy like "DON'T MOVE".
But again, why would I go through the trouble of basically going hunting in my own house when I can just hit a button and scare them away? I don't give a shit who they are or have any interest in "catching them" or anything like that, I just want them away from me and my family the fastest and safest way possible.

I'm not anti-gun, but I just think there are situations where adding (more) guns into play won't make it any better, and could potentially just make it worse.
 
Last edited:

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
8,005
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso
But my point was that more guns into that equation wouldn't necessarily have solved it. On the contrary, I think terrified college students with guns would have made the situation even more tense, as the shooter wasn't found until the very end, so anyone with a gun could have potentially been the shooter to the police. Or even more likely, you wind up with students-with-guns shooting other students-with-guns because they mistake them for the gunman (whose description, up until he was found, was "a man with a gun").

Yes, it may not have helped, but on the other side of the coin it could have. I just threw that out a food for thought, there is really no way of knowing what would have happened.

But again, why would I go through the trouble of basically going hunting in my own house when I can just hit a button and scare them away? I don't give a shit who they are or have any interest in "catching them" or anything like that, I just want them away from me and my family the fastest and safest way possible.

I'm not anti-gun, but I just think there are situations where adding (more) guns into play won't make it any better, and could potentially just make it worse.

I'm not saying an Alarm is a bad idea, but not everyone is scared away by an alarm. Most burglars know that it takes the police at least 5-10 minutes to respond to an alarm call. In that time, you can take quite a bit of stuff and be gone.
 
Top