The way it works here is you have to take a firearm safety class and pass, then fill out a series of paperwork which, among other things, asks why you feel you need a concealed carry permit. You make an appointment with your town/cities chief of police, present him the safety course cirtificate and your paperwork, and he will interview you. Bases on the interview, a backround check, and the way you responded to the questions on the paperwork, he will decide whether or not to issue you a licence to carry. If you have no criminal record or mental health problems, the chief must issue you at least a basic FID (firearms identification) card, which allows you to own and possess low capacity (10 rounds or less) non concealable firearms (rifles and shotguns), any license above that is 100% up to his/her discretion. A few years back a town not too far from me had a female chief of police who refused to issue ANYONE a concealed carry permit, not a single person her entire time in that office, which as I recall was about 15 years, so basically if you were an otherwise law-abiding citizen who happened to live in Carver, MA and wanted to protect yourself, you had to break the law to do it.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

Ah.... I think anyone with the right to own a gun, should have the right to bear it, loaded and ready.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

I agree 100%

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

Of course not, but what would be the point of that?

Books, chuch, and voting do not facilitate crime.

Guns facilitate crime. By making firearms more difficult to obtain, it makes firearms more difficult to sell on the black market, and allows for greater tracking and prosecutability of individuals who choose to bring legal firearms into the black market.

The greater number of firearms we can block from being sold illegally, the lower the number of criminals who will be able to illegally obtain firearms. Yes, I know what you will all say, "Criminals can get firearms illegally, no matter what!", which is true, but you CANNOT deny the fact that every day, legal firearms are exposed to the black market.

I all for gun ownership, but there has to be a foolproof system of checks on it, to insure that only the right people get them. Actions and necessities such as this lead us much closer to a solid system, and henceforth lead to a better society.

To get slightly off-topic, the ability of carrying guns into bars and other establishments of that kind will do nothing but strengthen the black market of gun sales. Another reason why I am opposed to that.

Why to ensure the ability to identify who may have come in contact with that information in the event of a crime, of course.
Really? You REALLY want me to point out the number of books available on the market with information which can be used in a crime? Do you REALLY want me to remind you that certain religions most assuredly have connections to criminal activity? Do you REALLY need me to point out just how much crime has been facilitated by "voting"?
They are a tool which are sometimes used in a crime. The vast majority of their usage is legal. That they are occasionally MISUSED is not a reason to limit lawful use.
How EXACTLY is this law going to do anything to limit black market sales? Are you fucking retarded? The black market, by definition, exists outside the normal sales channels. If anything, this law will make ammunition MORE readily available on the black market.
You're right. I cannot deny that many products which, by their plain existence, may be stolen and resold on the black market. Nope, cant do it. what I can do though is remind you that you're penalizing and restricting legal ownership while not influencing illegal ownership in the least. Again, as a reminder, this law does NOTHING about firearms, only ammunition.
Really? Define "right people" please. Define "foolproof" too while you're at it. There is no such thing as perfect. PERIOD. Quite frankly, if you're going to demand a "foolproof" system, the onus is upon you to present one. You have already admitted that it will do nothing to stop criminals, and yet you demand perfection? Again, are you retarded? Do you even THINK about what you're saying?

As far as "right people" go, the way our nation is set up, unless you have committed a felony, you have the right to be armed. Who the fuck are you to say that someone doesn't have that right?
That is your worthless opinion based in nothing but fear. Can you present a single society in which your ideas have worked? No? Didnt think so, but keep going on with that fantasy.
How the FUCK do you figure that? Seriously - I'm DYING to find out how you got to black market sales by allowing people to carry their legally owned firearms into places they legally go.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Reading and or selling a book is not illegal. For the sake of my argument, I am blindly ignoring the fact that ther are states which allow the sale of firearms to unlicensed private individuals.

IMO, that is one of the main problems with gun crime.

Unless that book is physically used in the process of committing the crime, it has nothing to do with that crime. One cannot be charged for their "knowledge or education". However, the existence of a book on crime, when found in possession of a criminal suspect would generally be enough evidence to indict the individual.

A religion has nothing to do with the actions of it's followers.

I'm referring mostly to violent crime between individuals. Voting has nothing to do with this.

Criminals do not use guns lawfully. You cannot ignore that fact.

If you are legally in ownership of a gun, why do you care so much? I equate criminal use of a firearm to drunk driving. If you're a sober driver, why would you care about police checkpoints? If anything, it is for your safety.

The main point is that we don't want criminals to have guns. If that means the legal owners must sacrifice a little of their privacy, so be it.

There is no hiding your cards at this poker table.

It is the same as what is going on with the sale of Benadryl, or Robitussin(whichever one is used to make methamphetamines) out in Utah. By making it more difficult to obtain the neccesary parts, it is more difficult for people to illegally use those parts.

By making it difficult to obtain firearms, individuals will be less likely, and much less abled to then turn around and sell those weapons to unlicensed, unknown individuals, who are looking for a firearm for not reason other than to commit a crime.

Right away? Of course not. However, eventually individuals participating in the sale of firearms in this manner will get caught (When a weapon registered to Joe Schmoe is found in connection to a murder, he will get charged, and put away, taking one illegal distributor off the street)

At this point, I ask you to re-read through my argument again. What I am basically arguing is that legal firearm owners have nothing to worry about. By insituting a stronger system of restriction on gun access it does nothing but take guns out of the hands of criminals.

The guns are coming from somewhere. And not all of them come through the border.

Do you not have a dictionary?

The "right people" are legal firearm owners.
"Foolproof", from the Merriam-Webster definition is, ": so simple, plain, or reliable as to leave no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure <a foolproof plan>"

foolproof - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


No, no, no. That is not what I am saying. Re-read this post.

Why do my ideas have to have worked somewhere already? My goal is to improve, not create.

It is the same as what happened with the speakeasies in the 1920s. You get a couple of people together, bent on sharing the same interests, naturally someone is going to say, "Hey, I know this guy down the street, who can get us what I want for cheap", leading into the funding of black market sales. Why do you think the mobs were so powerful during prohibition? They controlled the sale of alcohol. In todays world we have gangs controlling the sale of firearms. Allowing gun ownership in bars will do nothing but empower the gangs, financially. It is an uncontrolled concentration of inebriated particpants.

Remember, humans are dumb creatures. What is out of sight is out of mind.

Owning, shooting or selling a gun is not illegal.

Incidentally - MOST states allow sales to unlicensed private individuals. It is an extremely small number (like 2 I think) which require licensing.
You do realize criminals do not obtain them from gun stores right?
Ah, but you're saying ALL guns have something to do with crime even though they are not involved.
Why not? Currently the only reason they cannot is because of our 1st Amendment protections. Since you seem to have no problem ignoring our 2nd Amendment protections, whats to stop you from ignoring the 1st?
Um - no.
Legal gun ownership has nothing to do with criminal behavior.
Ah - so because it isnt immediate violent crime its OK then?
No shit. Yet you're wanting to punish those who have done no wrong - you cannot ignore THAT fact.
Gee, I dont know - probably because it restricts my rights and increases my cost for no benefit whatsoever? Thats just for starters.
Ah - if you have nothing to fear, why would you object to a search?

Get out of my country. Now. Better yet, go play in traffic. At night. Wearing black.

Incidentally, I have a HUGE problem with police checkpoints. In a free country, people do not have to justify their legal actions.
Like i said before, get out. Why in the living hell should someone who has committed no crime be penalized for the actions of others?
I'm not hiding a thing. What I own is none of your fucking business.
And it has had zero effect on criminal behavior and made legal behavior that much more difficult.
How much more difficult do you wish to make it to exercise a right? This may surprise you, in fact, I'm pretty sure it will, but the VAST majority of firearms owners never commit a crime. Why, again, should they be penalized?
This law has nothing to do with firearms registration.
What argument? You mean the issue of your mental masturbation?
Really? As this law ONLY affects the law abiding, how exactly do they have nothing to worry about? Besides the fact that criminals dont buy guns or ammo at the local store, even if they DID, they are exempt from this law due to their 5th Amendment protections. THAT, my friend, has actually been upheld in court.
No, a lot of them are stolen from the law abiding. Since you'd rather punish the victim, the criminal gets to keep the gun.
Yes i do. Do you?
Fine - the onus is upon YOU to provide a foolproof plan. You have not. End of argument. Now, get out of my country.
Yes, yes, yes, that IS what you're saying.
When they have been tried repeatedly and failed, do you not realize it is the very definition of insanity to try them AGAIN and expect them to have different results?
Gangs only control the sale of ILLEGAL firearms. By making it more and more difficult for legal access, all you do is increase the black market - just like prohibition. You may have noticed, the 18th Amendment was repealed...
And of course you're one of the rare smart ones who knows whats best for us right?

Like I said - PLEASE get the hell out of the United States. There are numerous nations more suited to the kind of government you seem to prefer. Cuba is just a few miles away from Florida and I'm sure they'd love a immigrant from the United States.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Currently.

Good old Commiefornia...........those poor bastards. So when do you think Californians will get their "chip"?

__________________
Want government run healthcare? Join the military.

Criminals just have to get their handgun ammo from out of state, that shouldn't prove to be very difficult. They could also use more rifles and shotguns as the ammo for these isn't covered by that Orwellian law.

or just get black market ammo. things do "fall off the truck" you know.

I am wondering if the bill also requires the registration info when buying reloading components....... it probably does.

__________________
Want government run healthcare? Join the military.

Discharging a firearm within 150ft of a road or building is illegal.

Exactly. They obtain them from wayward individuals who purchase weapons legally and sell them illegally. Any state which does not require a license for private sale of firearms does nothing but contribute to gun crime by facillitating the ability of criminals to obtain firearms.

I never said that.

I support the second ammendment. However, the 2nd ammendment, like the 1st ammendment, has certain parameters which it must follow in order to efficiently maintain order. The framers of the constitution put the provision of firearm-owning in the Constitution to reduce the ability of the government to develop into a tyranny. At the time there had been a push among some individuals towards monarchy, which could naturally lead to despotism, so this provision allowed for the creation of militias to overthrow that government, should it become tyrannical.

Um - yes. Obviously I am referring to a suspect whom cannot prove that he was not involved with the crime. Should an individual have a solid alibi, this would not be the case.

You cannot blankly make that statement. Legal gun owners sometimes commit gun crimes.

Again, you have not answered my question. What does democratic voting have to do with gun crime?

"Punish"? You gotta pay to play in this world, buddy. I'm all for libertarianism, but I am also a realist.

Welcome to America. Land of the taxed, home of the fearful.

Reducing crime does not benefit you? You must live very far away from the real world.

Why the personal attack?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. The second you turn the ignition in your car, the state police have you by the balls. It is just how it is.

An interesting anecdote...I was reading this story about a police checkpoint in southern Texas, where something like 72% of the cars that passed were illegal immigrants, who then got deported.

That is why I support checkpoints.

You gotta pay to play.

"Legal behavior"? Anybody can walk into a store and buy a bottle of pseudophedrine. There is no reason why anybody needs 72 bottles of it at once.

If you do, you probably won't last long, anyways.

Simple. They are not being penalized.

Am I being penalized for having higher car insurance premiums because i live in a populated area?

Do you not realize that a significant amount of firearms which are sold on the black market were originally legal firearms owned by the legal public? Sure, some of them are there because they got stolen, but a majority of them are sold by individuals who obtained them legally, and introduced them into the black market. "It got stolen, sorry", is nothing but a cop out used to cover their tracks.

Until you can take off your blinders and realize that humanity is not as peachy clean and truthful as you seem to think it is, we cannot come to an agreement.

Certain legal gun owners sell their weapons to criminals EVERY single day in this country. The prevalence of unregulated and untracked sales just furthers the prevalence of what is in my mind, nothing but crime.

What you are bascially arguing is that of criminal rights. If the non-criminal is ever so slightly affected in the process of eradicating the criminal, the ends certainly justified the means. By being in opposition to this slight, yet necessary responsibility on the part of legal individuals, you do nothing but further the ability of criminals to partake in criminal activity. And that to me, is criminal within itself.

Again, with the attacks.

No, sorry. Reading comprehension > you. (Hey look, I can attack, too.)

Not a man of science, I take it.

You may not realize it, but there are gang members who are legal gun owners. At this point, I refer you back to my bold statement from earlier.

Have a good day, sir.

I'm amazed. You just acknowledged the second amendment's purpose of allowing private citizens to fight a tyrannical government. Yet you support requiring a license which identifies you as a gun owner. Let me draw out a hypothetical scenario for you.

I'm elected president in 2028. (Not quite sure how that could possibly happen, but run with it.) I decide that I'm going to turn the United States of America into the Grand Empire of Porras. Step one is to establish a communications blackout zone. Step two is to take all the guns from all the registered gun owners in the blackout zone. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

How do you not immediately make that connection?

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Putting restrictions on gun ownership does not violate the public's ability to create a militia.

There is a time and place for everything.

You're not going to overthrow many governments by carrying your .45 into a bar on a Tuesday afternoon.