http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/23/gun-control-debate_n_2749196.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I like this article. We need to fight back and show them we are in numbers is we are to keep our guns.

Who is "we" and who is "them"?

It appears you can keep your guns, provided you pass registration and a background check. Guns are a serious "instrument" that can be used for good and bad just as easy as both sides. 

If you can pass the tests and the checks, then I am all for it, a licensed gun owner in my eyes is a safe and responsible gun owner.

We os us and them is you.

I are me and you is you.  No?

Originally Posted By Sigma One (23 FEB 2013 3:55pm)

It appears you can keep your guns, provided you pass registration and a background check. Guns are a serious "instrument" that can be used for good and bad just as easy as both sides. 

 

If you can pass the tests and the checks, then I am all for it, a licensed gun owner in my eyes is a safe and responsible gun owner.

About ten years ago or more a California legislator proposed that everyone show proof of a firearm safety course prior to purchase of a firearm.  The state had no such courses and refused to endorse the NRA's courses although they were acceptable to fulfill the criteria.  The NRA has been promoting gun safety for over a century and provides instruction for both students, and instructors of gun safety, yet the state didn't want to advertise that fact. This is one reason why all such measures promoted as responsible efforts towards greater gun safety are met with suspicion of an agenda against all gun ownership. 

The NRA promotes a little more than gun safety.

why dont you be more specific instead of sniping from the side like you usually do.

Hunting is too big an activity here in Minnesota for massively increased gun restrictions to become a reality.  To pass such a bill would be both political AND economic suicide -- something that is well understood by both the Legislature and the Governor.  (Heck, Dayton and a majority of the legislators are themselves avid sportsmen/women; you can hardly get elected to higher office in this state if you don't have a hunting rifle and/or fishing pole.) 

Despite the Senate, HouseRep, and the governorship all being controlled by the DFL, they're not going to go hog-wild on gun control.  The most we'll see -- if even that much -- is more stringent background checks, and better care/controls for the mentally ill/disabled.  We badly need the latter in any case (the budget cuts under Pawlenty's aegis really ate away most of the support structure for these folks), so enacting something like that won't be terribly controversial. 

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (23 FEB 2013 10:42pm)

why dont you be more specific instead of sniping from the side like you usually do.

That is sniping at its finest.  Give yourself an another award.

Us as in "we the people" need to stay vigilante. The government can put any type of test together to screen people that have "unique ideas", and preventing them from owning guns, like for instance replacing a corrupt government in Washington DC.

I ran into some guy in the unemployment line, and he pointed out a worrisome situation.

1.  For decades, the Government has been requiring automobile owners to register their vehicles, with each vehicle assigned a unique number, giving the Government the ability to easily track every vehicle in the United States.

2.  All drivers are required to pass a test before being given permission by the Government to to drive vehicles which they have paid for with their own, hard-earned money!

3.  Many [all?] states require automobile owners to purchase insurance to cover the costs of any accidents they may have--even though less than 1 in 5 drivers are involved in accidents!  In addition, in true Big Brother style, the Government requires insurance companies to report any automobile owner who is dropped by his insurance company, enabling the Government to immediately revoke that owners permission to drive his own car!

4.  Perhaps most insidious, 15- and 16-year-olds--impressionable youths!--are lured by the promise of cheaper insurance rates to take "drivers' education classes," usually taught by public school faculty--known to be full of left-wing, union-loving Reds, who thus receive extra time to indoctrinate our children, even outside of the class room.

This has been implemented in stages over many years, so that we have been lulled into a false sense of security.  But, now the stage is set.  A Freedom-hating Commie has finally made it into the White House and, now that he is in his second term, he can act without fear of consequences.  My unemployed buddy assured me that OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE OUR CARS!!!!!

I urge all right-thinking members of the Wargamer community to take action to insure that this does not happen.  Contact your representatives--unless they're Freedom-hating Commies too--and urge them to oppose any infringement of our right to own and drive automobiles.  I know that the Government won't take my car until they pry my cold, dead fingers from the steering wheel.

Originally Posted By danlongman (24 FEB 2013 12:21pm)

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (23 FEB 2013 10:42pm)

why dont you be more specific instead of sniping from the side like you usually do.

That is sniping at its finest.  Give yourself an another award.

 

 

however you are a particularly bad sniper who doesnt accomplish anything.

Originally Posted By gerald (24 FEB 2013 5:19pm)

Us as in "we the people" need to stay vigilante. The government can put any type of test together to screen people that have "unique ideas", and preventing them from owning guns, like for instance replacing a corrupt government in Washington DC.

everyone I know that has a carry license went to at least a 3 hour class that covered all aspects of gun ownership and included a segment of range time to let the instructor see the persons ability.  IIRC  a person has to be able to hit inside the 2 ring at 20 feet to get their certification.

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (25 FEB 2013 9:35pm)

Originally Posted By gerald (24 FEB 2013 5:19pm)

Us as in "we the people" need to stay vigilante. The government can put any type of test together to screen people that have "unique ideas", and preventing them from owning guns, like for instance replacing a corrupt government in Washington DC.

 

everyone I know that has a carry license went to at least a 3 hour class that covered all aspects of gun ownership and included a segment of range time to let the instructor see the persons ability.  IIRC  a person has to be able to hit inside the 2 ring at 20 feet to get their certification.

Do you think it could be a bit more tougher? As in more hours in classes, range time, etc. I'm curious to ask just to see what others think. 

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (25 FEB 2013 9:35pm)

Originally Posted By gerald (24 FEB 2013 5:19pm)

Us as in "we the people" need to stay vigilante. The government can put any type of test together to screen people that have "unique ideas", and preventing them from owning guns, like for instance replacing a corrupt government in Washington DC.

 

everyone I know that has a carry license went to at least a 3 hour class that covered all aspects of gun ownership and included a segment of range time to let the instructor see the persons ability.  IIRC  a person has to be able to hit inside the 2 ring at 20 feet to get their certification.

A three hour class!!

Wow! Sounds like they have been gone through with a fine toothed comb. I'd be including it in my resume.

They should be handed a Doctorate of Shooting after that!

I said it was at least a 3 hour class and range time is included in that so the instructor can see how the person handles a firearm.  most people around hear have a lot more experience due to the region.  this kind of class also only gives you a certificate to apply for a carry license.  to get said license you still have to have a backround check.  rules change from state to state but thats what it is in Florida.  the last time I went through it it was the shortened class and about 80% of the people there were taking it for renewal purposes.

Under those strict guidance rules, I can understand how guns will never be a safety issue in the US!

well my penal colony friend...  with the amount of guns set against the population of the US guns arent a safety issue.  its the people that are a safety issue.  its a matter of scale.  what works for Norway with medical coverage doesnt work here because of scale.  what works in China politicaly doesnt work here because of scale. different stokes and all that.

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (25 FEB 2013 11:20pm)

well my penal colony friend...  with the amount of guns set against the population of the US guns arent a safety issue.  its the people that are a safety issue.  its a matter of scale.  what works for Norway with medical coverage doesnt work here because of scale.  what works in China politicaly doesnt work here because of scale. different stokes and all that.

'Strokes.'

(The penal thing made me laugh! I was unaware anyone knew I was hiding away in a small collective getting an enlargement.)

well if you think Im hiding under my bed with a gun its fair to think that youre hiding away from British authorities.

Good old NRA....

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3-reasons-its-time-to-stop-taking-nra-seriously/

Originally Posted By danlongman (2 MAR 2013 10:09am)

Good old NRA....

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3-reasons-its-time-to-stop-taking-nra-seriously/

Definitely agree that the NRA represents a very small portion of actual gun owners. The trouble is that they have a lot of power and are always looked at when ever there is something gun-related going on in the country and people assume they represent ALL gun owners.

Every time they point to an NRA bit, there should be a sign that says "actual members: 4.5 mil, actual gun owners: 50+ mil" 

Its all about perspective. But also agree that the NRA looks out for its own best interests, be it positive or negative.

Are there any other memberships like the NRA? 

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (23 FEB 2013 10:42pm)

why dont you be more specific instead of sniping from the side like you usually do.

Don't bother.  I've long ago concluded that's the best he can muster.

Originally Posted By Sigma One (25 FEB 2013 9:52pm)

Originally Posted By GDS Starfury (25 FEB 2013 9:35pm)

Originally Posted By gerald (24 FEB 2013 5:19pm)

Us as in "we the people" need to stay vigilante. The government can put any type of test together to screen people that have "unique ideas", and preventing them from owning guns, like for instance replacing a corrupt government in Washington DC.

 

everyone I know that has a carry license went to at least a 3 hour class that covered all aspects of gun ownership and included a segment of range time to let the instructor see the persons ability.  IIRC  a person has to be able to hit inside the 2 ring at 20 feet to get their certification.

 

Do you think it could be a bit more tougher? As in more hours in classes, range time, etc. I'm curious to ask just to see what others think. 

 

... Every time they point to an NRA bit, there should be a sign that says "actual members: 4.5 mil, actual gun owners: 50+ mil"

That's an interesting question.  Recruits in MCRD San Diego spend many hours (over 5 days) of instruction and dry-fire practice before they were handed any live ammo.  By the same token, it's not exactly rocket science and the cub scouts used to provide marksmanship training when I was very young.  So I'd say the most important concept to be imparted for a conceal carry license would be the legal parameters involved in the application of force with a concealed weapon; not basic handling safety or marksmanship.  Not having actually attended such a course it's hard to say if 3 hours is enough though I think it would be enough for me.

On your point about NRA membership.  Years ago I took an NRA instructor course and the woman who gave instruction had some strong feelings regarding the NRA.  Her long membership (over 40 years) had been driven by her passion for competitive marksmanship but she loathed the reputation the NRA garnered from their activism in guarding 2nd amendment rights.  She felt the NRA would have been better served if it had formed a separate organization dedicated to defending gun rights and political activism and have the original organization designated as the NRA stick with its traditional mission which is promoting gun safety, hunting, and promotion and sanctioning of marksmanship competitions nationally.  Kind of like the separation of Sinn Fein and the IRA; both dedicated to the same goal but arguably a concerted effort of separating the methodology.

I think she may have a point because youth organizations used to include basic marksmanship training and those efforts both demystified guns and led to better understanding and appreciation of gun sporting and hunting.  It also helps eliminate the many misconceptions concerning guns and second amendment freedoms.  I think the NRA might have more support and suffer less demonization if people still had the same impression of guns, and gun culture that existed 50 years ago.