Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds?

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by toreskha

If an obvious hippie came up to you and started asking questions, would you hesitate to give him or her your honest opinion?

I'd tell an Obama hippie communist the same thing I'd tell Charlton Heston's ghost - firearm ownership is a human right, and anyone not limited by mental illness or a history of violent felonies should be able to reserve the right to exercise it to an absolute degree - except for slight adjustments in specific circumstances like air and spacecraft, where I don't want FMJ rounds flying through equipment critical to my getting back on the ground safely.

Though I would probably convey the same info, depending on the audience, I may choose my words more carefully. I would present my opinion in the most effective manner, therefore I use caution in choosing how I offer my opinion. If I offend the person asking and the shut down after my first sentence, then the rest of my message won't matter much.



gf

[johnsteele]

Originally Posted by boyzoi

Would you be less than thrilled if I was picnic'ing in a public park with a 50 cal on my blankie?


I usually take my stinger on picnics......so no, your .50 wont bother me.

If you are willing to spoil your picnic by lugging around a .50 cal instead of sandwiches then I'm willing to let you ruin it :-)

[johnsteele]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Nevertheless, for that very reason, Federal Air Marshals must meet higher handgun proficiency standards than just about any other law enforcement officer anywhere.

But that's not because of the danger to the aircraft; its generally considered in bad form, EVEN for the feds, to put three rounds into innocent bystanders. The A/C cabin is a very confined space with lots and lots of obstructions like seats and oh yeah citizens, so control of the weapon is even more important than on the ground :-)

[ronwill]

Many will disagree with me and that's fine. As for a total ban for the general population, any weapon of mass destruction (chemical/ biological/ nuclear). I would include fully functional military aircraft, aircraft carriers, etc. However, all small arms would be permitted. It should be noted I would support a shall issue permit system where a background check is performed for violent criminal activity and verified mental instability only. As for no carry areas, the only ones I would truly consider is school areas by high school and lower students. College carry, by those 18 and over would be fine.

[kwo51]

No off limits to responsible ccw holders.

[BoomChick]

Originally Posted by ronwill

Many will disagree with me and that's fine. As for a total ban for the general population, any weapon of mass destruction (chemical/ biological/ nuclear). I would include fully functional military aircraft, aircraft carriers, etc. However, all small arms would be permitted. It should be noted I would support a shall issue permit system where a background check is performed for violent criminal activity and verified mental instability only. As for no carry areas, the only ones I would truly consider is school areas by high school and lower students. College carry, by those 18 and over would be fine.

Hello to the land of boiled peanuts -- man I miss those!

Anyway. . .

What about 18 and over High Schoolers? (there are a few)
And would you allow their parents or teachers to carry in elementary, junior and high schools?

Is the age the issue, or the location?

I think the age would be the issue for me, not the place.

I currently agree with the checks for those with a history of violence. But I don't know how I feel about the mental illness checks. It's hard enough for some soldiers to get help with things like PTSD without the fear of permanently surrendering their right to carry. Seems like it's giving up on them making a recovery. On the other hand, I don't think paranoid schizophrenics should be issued a carry permit, ever.

My current fear with allowing really large arms would be that only the very rich or major corporations would be able to afford them and this would create an unstable situation. As it is now, one man who owns 300 rifles is about the same as a guy who saves his money and gets only one. It's hard to shoot more than one at a time. . ;) -- and certainly not 300.

What do you all think?

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by BoomChick

Hello to the land of boiled peanuts -- man I miss those!

Anyway. . .

What about 18 and over High Schoolers? (there are a few)
And would you allow their parents or teachers to carry in elementary, junior and high schools?

Is the age the issue, or the location?

I think the age would be the issue for me, not the place.

I currently agree with the checks for those with a history of violence. But I don't know how I feel about the mental illness checks. It's hard enough for some soldiers to get help with things like PTSD without the fear of permanently surrendering their right to carry. Seems like it's giving up on them making a recovery. On the other hand, I don't think paranoid schizophrenics should be issued a carry permit, ever.

My current fear with allowing really large arms would be that only the very rich or major corporations would be able to afford them and this would create an unstable situation. As it is now, one man who owns 300 rifles is about the same as a guy who saves his money and gets only one. It's hard to shoot more than one at a time. . ;) -- and certainly not 300.

What do you all think?

High school and below: Parents and Teachers yes, students no.

College: All Yes (except for gifted underage students).

As for mental instability, I'm not talking about someone being admitted for observation. I'm talking about those who have verified mental diseases that make them a danger to themselves or others, or where they lack the ability to distinguish from reality and what may be in their mind.

[LongRider]

Originally Posted by johnsteele

Anywhere a police or federal officer is prohibited. Other than that no restrictions

Add military and its the perfect answer. Arms should be limited to what is available military. Requirements and limitations for purchase or carry of weapons NONE or limited to presentation of drivers license as proof of citizens Aliens should not be issued drivers licenses. Permits can be granted to legal visitors.

Originally Posted by toreskha

Depressurization in mid-air sucks.

Is a myth no matter how many times you have see it in James Bond movies or on TV everything in a airplane cabin does not does not get sucked out of tiny bullet holes

Chances of gunfire decompressing a cabin virtually nil'

Uncontrolled decompression

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by ronwill

Many will disagree with me and that's fine. As for a total ban for the general population, any weapon of mass destruction (chemical/ biological/ nuclear). I would include fully functional military aircraft, aircraft carriers, etc. However, all small arms would be permitted. It should be noted I would support a shall issue permit system where a background check is performed for violent criminal activity and verified mental instability only. As for no carry areas, the only ones I would truly consider is school areas by high school and lower students. College carry, by those 18 and over would be fine.

Since the Constitution only mentions the "right to keep and bear ARMS" (not the right to keep and bear FIREARMS), I suppose that technically, the WMD you mention are technically not illegal under the Constitution. However, yes, I too would be in favor of a ban on these types of weapons for civilian possession, although it would take a constitutional amendment to make it official.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by BoomChick

I currently agree with the checks for those with a history of violence. But I don't know how I feel about the mental illness checks. It's hard enough for some soldiers to get help with things like PTSD without the fear of permanently surrendering their right to carry. Seems like it's giving up on them making a recovery.

I sympathize with soldiers who have PTSD - but the fact remains that I don't want them doing anything (operating heavy machinery, driving a car, carrying a firearm) that gives them the opportunity to do serious damage if they were to lose it. If they do something, it's going to hurt just as bad as if a non-vet did it.

Anyone who completes mental health treatment successfully - veteran or otherwise - should be eligible to again do things that require full mental faculties at all times.

The availability of mental health treatment is an issue that must be addressed by the DoD and the VA, of course - and vets who need it should make their voices heard and keep the pressure on.