In a curious turn of events, Iowa grants permits for blind people to carry guns in public.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

farson135:
It is the only option.

You may want some theoretical law to be passed but it does not exist. People are working within the parameters of the current laws. My problem with you is that you are unwilling to accept that fact. Instead you continue to harp on theoretical licenses and insist that CHLs must be denied to people (contrary to Federal Law) for no other reason than because of this theoretical license.

Except, I'm really not unwilling to accept that fact, but that doesn't mean this fact is the right way to do things, nor the only way to do things, nor that it cannot be improved. Again, if the legally blind can pass a vision test and it is stipulated that they are not allowed to utilize their firearms among the general public without their corrective eye gear, like can be stipulated on a driver's license, I see no reason they should not be issued such a permit either, but that doesn't mean that people who cannot see at all no matter what should be granted such a permit as well (and I'm honestly not sure why one would argue that they should, unless they somehow believe that the ability to see what/who you are shooting at is not important to being able to safely and responsibly fire a gun in public), hence why I believe an alternative should be available, much like a government ID is an alternative to a driver's license.

I'm really not sure why you seem to find that so unreasonable.

Also:

There are federal regulations. That did not stop- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

Because the laws are ambiguous.

This isn't a case of ambiguous laws at all, this is a case of willful abuse of authority and illegal search and seizure by the arresting officer, as well as willful deception and denial of proper procedure on the part of the judge to the jury in regards to the exemptions of the law. Which begs the question, assuming you are potentially breaking a law by stopping at a 7/11 on your way to a firing range, what did you do to attract police attention to the point that they searched your vehicle and found your firearm in order to charge you in the first place? Did you give them probable cause? In which case, how can you blame "ambiguous laws" for your actions and the subsequent consequences thereof? Or was it a case of illegal search and seizure, such as in the case of Brian Aitken, who was exonerated of two of the three charges, leaving him with a charge of possessing ammunition that was unambiguously illegal to possess in the state of New Jersey, which should likely also be dropped due to the illegal nature of the search that found it?

Unfortunately, people with guns, whether they've legally got the right and/or necessary permit or not, just tend to make cops unreasonably nervous, and injustices will be done regardless, which is why discussions on better ways of doing things is an important discussion to have, even if you fully believe the current way works well enough for now. And becoming overly aggressive and agitated against perceived attacks against yourself by people simply discussing ways current laws could be improved does not help matters at all.

Zeconte:
Except, I'm really not unwilling to accept that fact, but that doesn't mean this fact is the right way to do things, nor the only way to do things, nor that it cannot be improved. Again, if the legally blind can pass a vision test and it is stipulated that they are not allowed to utilize their firearms among the general public without their corrective eye gear, like can be stipulated on a driver's license, I see no reason they should not be issued such a permit either, but that doesn't mean that people who cannot see at all no matter what should be granted such a permit as well (and I'm honestly not sure why one would argue that they should, unless they somehow believe that the ability to see what/who you are shooting at is not important to being able to safely and responsibly fire a gun in public), hence why I believe an alternative should be available, much like a government ID is an alternative to a driver's license.

I'm really not sure why you seem to find that so unreasonable.

If that is the case then why are you whining to me? I said that fully blind people want access to these rights (a background check that is accepted even by employers, easier travel rights, etc) and since under ADA you are not allowed to discriminate against someone based on a disability they have to provide those licenses to blind people.

If you are not arguing against that point then you had no reason to address me about the licenses because your point is irrelevant.

Actually, what you were arguing against was the fact that CHLs do provide special rights. A fact that you have yet to disprove. Instead you moved on because I showed that you were wrong.

This isn't a case of ambiguous laws at all

Yes it is. The laws governing the transportation of firearms have many exceptions that vary based upon many different factors.

Which begs the question, assuming you are potentially breaking a law by stopping at a 7/11 on your way to a firing range, what did you do to attract police attention to the point that they searched your vehicle and found your firearm in order to charge you in the first place? Did you give them probable cause? In which case, how can you blame "ambiguous laws" for your actions and the subsequent consequences thereof?

You are the one who told me to leave my firearm visible and ostensibly unattended in my vehicle while in your state when I stop for a piss. Officers are well known for overreacting-

BTW the LEO was in the wrong. Open carry is legal in Philadelphia.

leaving him with a charge of possessing ammunition that was unambiguously illegal to possess in the state of New Jersey

It is not illegal to possess in New Jersey. The method of moving it was illegal. To a person just looking at the statute it is easy to misinterpret.

And becoming overly aggressive and agitated against perceived attacks against yourself by people simply discussing ways current laws could be improved does not help matters at all.

I agree. Which is why you need to calm the fuck down.

farson135:

I agree. Which is why you need to calm the fuck down.

Yes, yes you do. So sorry for trying to have a discussion, next time, I'll just stop posting whenever you barge into a thread and start raving about being attacked.

Zeconte:

farson135:

I agree. Which is why you need to calm the fuck down.

Yes, yes you do. So sorry for trying to have a discussion, next time, I'll just stop posting whenever you barge into a thread and start raving about being attacked.

A discussion? You have yet to back up any of your points. You started this discussion by saying I was wrong. Obviously I was not and I showed it. Then you were unable to prove your point so you changed what you were talking about. What you were talking about was completely irrelevant to my point and in fact you never made it clear why you were saying anything.

Basically, if you have nothing of value to say then don't talk to me. You added absolutely nothing of value to this discussion. You told me I was wrong and still failed to prove anything. Then you end the discussion by saying I was raving. YOU wrote that. The guy who wrote this- "Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?" A statement that wholly and totally irrelevant. Not to mention needlessly provocative.

Zeconte:

Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

Shadowstar38:

Zeconte:

Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

Zeconte:

Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and it's primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Whereas if you're participating in a shooting competition and your gun breaks (the example given to counter this), why would a competitive shooter only own one gun or bring only one gun to a competition? And if all your guns break at the same time, what kind of gun enthusiast are you to keep all of your guns in such a state of disrepair? Not to mention I wasn't even arguing against streamlining the process per say, I was arguing against the idea that just because the blind could benefit from such things that certain states include secondary to being able to conceal carry, it does not justify allowing them to conceal carry and that a more responsible way of handling such an issue would be to allow another type of permit that grants these secondary benefits, the ability to bypass background checks and transport firearms, even across state lines, hassle-free, etc, without also granting the ability to carry around loaded weapons wherever they pleased and adding additional requirements to be allowed this greater privilege and responsibility, such as a vision and/or marksmanship test to demonstrate one's ability to hit their intended target.

Basically, I was asking "and this benefit of getting a gun faster outweighs the potential danger of giving a completely blind person the right to carry a loaded gun around with him how exactly?" by pointing out just how unnecessary getting a gun immediately was opposed to ordering a gun and then picking it up some other day when it was convenient for you.

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

Zeconte:

Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

I also don't need a pair of headphones right now. It'd still be stupid to make me wait 2 days to get them when the transaction can be done with right now.

And those 2 days exist to make sure they're not giving said dangerous item to a shady individual. If flashing a piece of paper does the same thing with less work, what does Zeconte have to object to?

Zeconte:

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and it's primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Whereas if you're participating in a shooting competition and your gun breaks (the example given to counter this), why would a competitive shooter only own one gun or bring only one gun to a competition? And if all your guns break at the same time, what kind of gun enthusiast are you to keep all of your guns in such a state of disrepair? Not to mention I wasn't even arguing against streamlining the process per say, I was arguing against the idea that just because the blind could benefit from such things that certain states include secondary to being able to conceal carry, it does not justify allowing them to conceal carry and that a more responsible way to allow another type of permit that grants these secondary benefits, the ability to bypass background checks and transport firearms, even across state lines, hassle-free, etc, without also granting the ability to carry around loaded weapons wherever they pleased and adding additional requirements to be allowed this greater privilege and responsibility, such as a vision and/or marksmanship test to demonstrate one's ability to hit their intended target.

If a large number of fully blind people kept getting permits with the intention of carrying a loaded firearm, I might want something like that. As of now, it's a waste of time.

Shadowstar38:
If a large number of fully blind people kept getting permits with the intention of carrying a loaded firearm, I might want something like that. As of now, it's a waste of time.

And the problem is, no one can really tell how many blind people are getting these permits because no one is keeping track. And the worst part about it all is, while trying to research the subject of whether or not Iowa allows one with a concealed carry permit to bypass background checks, I found that not only does it, but Iowa also has a separate permit that allows one to simply bypass a background check to purchase a firearm without also allowing concealed carry. In other words, they've already enacted exactly what I've suggested, and yet still allow the blind to get a concealed carry permit, meaning, the only reason the blind would require a "permit to carry" instead of a "permit to acquire" would be because they were intending to carry.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html

Zeconte:

Shadowstar38:
If a large number of fully blind people kept getting permits with the intention of carrying a loaded firearm, I might want something like that. As of now, it's a waste of time.

And the problem is, no one can really tell how many blind people are getting these permits because no one is keeping track. And the worst part about it all is, while trying to research the subject of whether or not Iowa allows one with a concealed carry permit to bypass background checks, I found that not only does it, but Iowa also has a separate permit that allows one to simply bypass a background check to purchase a firearm without also allowing concealed carry. In other words, they've already enacted exactly what I've suggested, and yet still allow the blind to get a concealed carry permit, meaning, the only reason the blind would require a "permit to carry" instead of a "permit to acquire" would be because they were intending to carry.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html

That is not what it means at all.

First of all, you are still ignoring the basic fact that being legally blind does not mean that the lights are out. It means that you cannot see without aid. Once again, a friend of mine is a 1,000 yard competitive shooter while being legally blind.

Second of all, you are still ignoring all of the other advantages that I described.

Third, I want to see a citation for that other background check.

Zeconte:

Shadowstar38:
If a large number of fully blind people kept getting permits with the intention of carrying a loaded firearm, I might want something like that. As of now, it's a waste of time.

And the problem is, no one can really tell how many blind people are getting these permits because no one is keeping track. And the worst part about it all is, while trying to research the subject of whether or not Iowa allows one with a concealed carry permit to bypass background checks, I found that not only does it, but Iowa also has a separate permit that allows one to simply bypass a background check to purchase a firearm without also allowing concealed carry. In other words, they've already enacted exactly what I've suggested, and yet still allow the blind to get a concealed carry permit, meaning, the only reason the blind would require a "permit to carry" instead of a "permit to acquire" would be because they were intending to carry.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html

Well, now my question is, does the "Acquire" permit also legally let you transport the weapon after you buy it?

farson135:
That is not what it means at all.

First of all, you are still ignoring the basic fact that being legally blind does not mean that the lights are out. It means that you cannot see without aid. Once again, a friend of mine is a 1,000 yard competitive shooter while being legally blind.

Except, had you actually been paying any attention at all to my arguments, you'd have seen that I have actually stated repeatedly that I am talking about the completely blind, and the only concern I'd have with the legally blind is them trying to shoot a firearm without the aid of their corrective eye gear.

Second of all, you are still ignoring all of the other advantages that I described.

While you are still ignoring how all of those other advantages could just as easily be given through a "permit to acquire" rather than a "permit to carry" unless the advantage that you desire is to be able to carry a loaded weapon around with you wherever you go, which, again, I believe should have stricter requirements than a permit simply allowing one to purchase and transport an unloaded weapon.

Third, I want to see a citation for that other background check.

Alright, since the official government website for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is not sufficient for you, how about the NRA-ILA website?

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/iowa.aspx

You see, Iowa, in order for someone to even purchase a handgun, requires them to get a permit to do so. You do not need a permit to buy a shotgun or rifle, but having a permit to buy a handgun allows one to bypass the need of a background check, just like having a concealed carry permit does.

The only added benefit a concealed carry permit has over a permit to acquire is allowing one to carry a loaded, unsecured weapon on their person or in their vehicle.

Shadowstar38:
Well, now my question is, does the "Acquire" permit also legally let you transport the weapon after you buy it?

Loaded and unsecured, no, unloaded and secured, you don't even need a permit to do so, though I'd imagine showing a "permit to acquire" in addition to having the weapon unloaded and secured would provide an officer the same amount of assurance that presenting a "permit to carry" would, since both are proof that one has went through the proper background checks to acquire either permit in the first place.

Zeconte:

Shadowstar38:
Well, now my question is, does the "Acquire" permit also legally let you transport the weapon after you buy it?

Loaded and unsecured, no, unloaded and secured, you don't even need a permit to do so, though I'd imagine showing a "permit to acquire" in addition to having the weapon unloaded and secured would provide an officer the same amount of assurance that presenting a "permit to carry" would, since both are proof that one has went through to proper background checks to acquire either permit in the first place.

I can't argue with that logic.

Shadowstar38:

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

I also don't need a pair of headphones right now. It'd still be stupid to make me wait 2 days to get them when the transaction can be done with right now.

And those 2 days exist to make sure they're not giving said dangerous item to a shady individual. If flashing a piece of paper does the same thing with less work, what does Zeconte have to object to?

I don't know where you're from but where I live I don't know of someone ever killing someone else with a pair of headphones by using them in their primary function.

Purchasing a gun should NEVER be like purchasing a harmless household item.

It is an item capable of - nay, DESIGNED for - incredible harm. Its primary function creates a zone of lethality directly in front of it.

Shadowstar38:

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

This is some grade A tinfoil hat shit. And something I see a lot of.

Why would you ever not want to make doing something quick and easier?

I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit. A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

I also don't need a pair of headphones right now. It'd still be stupid to make me wait 2 days to get them when the transaction can be done with right now.

And those 2 days exist to make sure they're not giving said dangerous item to a shady individual. If flashing a piece of paper does the same thing with less work, what does Zeconte have to object to?

A pair of headphones is not capable of ending human life. False equivalency.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
A pair of headphones is not capable of ending human life. False equivalency.

Well, theoretically, they could, if you say wrapped the cord around someone's neck (though using your bare hands would likely be more effective) or broke them in half and jabbed the sharp plastic edge this would create into their windpipe or other vital soft spot, assuming the plastic was hard enough to pierce the skin before breaking, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as easy to do as it would be if using a gun, the specific function of which is to cause damage to whatever is in the path of the bullet it launches at high velocity when the trigger is pulled...

But yeah, if you wanted to go out and buy something to quickly and easily kill someone, it just makes sense to make you wait a couple days to give you time to reconsider, whereas if you were truly motivated to kill someone by any means necessary, whatever you go out and buy should at least make you put some effort into successfully murdering them.

:P

Purchasing a Gun = Purchasing a pair of Headphones.

Please somebody tell my he is trolling, please...

nyysjan:
Purchasing a Gun = Purchasing a pair of Headphones.

Please somebody tell my he is trolling, please...

I suspect he is completely serious.

Karthak:

nyysjan:
Purchasing a Gun = Purchasing a pair of Headphones.

Please somebody tell my he is trolling, please...

I suspect he is completely serious.

Its Shadowstar, so I'm on the fence. Were it Farson I wouldn't be in doubt.

I suck at analogies. Here was my point:

"Why do need a gun right now?"

Why do you want me to wait for it? If I was buying it specifically to murder someone, which I guess is what you're trying to avoid here, I can still do that later.

Last time I bought a pistol, it took 15 minutes including the paperwork and background check(I don't have a permit yet). I just want to know what all the extra shit everyone else has to go through is for.

Shadowstar38:
Why do you want me to wait for it? If I was buying it specifically to murder someone, which I guess is what you're trying to avoid here, I can still do that later.

If you want it to impulsively murder someone in the heat of the moment sort of thing, it'd give you time to stop and think.

Same as that thing about how people attempting suicide generally won't if they are stopped for a few hours.

Shadowstar38:
I suck at analogies. Here was my point:

"Why do need a gun right now?"

Why do you want me to wait for it? If I was buying it specifically to murder someone, which I guess is what you're trying to avoid here, I can still do that later.

Last time I bought a pistol, it took 15 minutes including the paperwork and background check(I don't have a permit yet). I just want to know what all the extra shit everyone else has to go through is for.

Why are you so adverse to people conducting checks to ensure you're an individual who would have no reason to not be considered suitable for owning a gun?

Because I know a lot of people prefer such checks to take place, and I shudder to think of a society that allows people to purchase firearms without a check of their character.

If that means the most outstanding individual of moral and ethical responsibility needs to wait 2 days before they can have a firearm I see no problem because it is a check that will stop somebody released on probation for violent assault from purchasing one as well.

Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a world with semi-automatic weapons.

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:
I suck at analogies. Here was my point:

"Why do need a gun right now?"

Why do you want me to wait for it? If I was buying it specifically to murder someone, which I guess is what you're trying to avoid here, I can still do that later.

Last time I bought a pistol, it took 15 minutes including the paperwork and background check(I don't have a permit yet). I just want to know what all the extra shit everyone else has to go through is for.

Why are you so adverse to people conducting checks to ensure you're an individual who would have no reason to not be considered suitable for owning a gun?

Because I know a lot of people prefer such checks to take place, and I shudder to think of a society that allows people to purchase firearms without a check of their character.

If that means the most outstanding individual of moral and ethical responsibility needs to wait 2 days before they can have a firearm I see no problem because it is a check that will stop somebody released on probation for violent assault from purchasing one as well.

Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a world with semi-automatic weapons.

He's not complaining about the checks themselves, he's just saying that if there was a way to speed the process along, so that someone could bring something as proof, issued by the government who would revoke or suspend it if there was any reason to, that they have already passed all the necessary background checks, what's the problem with this? Why still make these people who are confirmed by the state government to be legally allowed to purchase a firearm wait?

To which I say nothing. The only reason I argued against it in the first place was to say that if the only way to get this right was to also be given the right to conceal carry said weapon around with them in public, I'm not so sure certain people deserve to be able to conceal carry, and if that means those people can't have either, I'm sure they can get by without it.

Zeconte:
Except, had you actually been paying any attention at all to my arguments, you'd have seen that I have actually stated repeatedly that I am talking about the completely blind, and the only concern I'd have with the legally blind is them trying to shoot a firearm without the aid of their corrective eye gear.

Ok, then you have absolutely no evidence that the people you are talking about have gotten a license. The article was referring to the legally blind. So your point is invalid.

While you are still ignoring how all of those other advantages could just as easily be given through a "permit to acquire" rather than a "permit to carry" unless the advantage that you desire is to be able to carry a loaded weapon around with you wherever you go, which, again, I believe should have stricter requirements than a permit simply allowing one to purchase and transport an unloaded weapon.

And yet those advantages do not exist on a "permit to acquire". In fact, no advantages exist in that permit.

Alright, since the official government website for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is not sufficient for you

The ATF website did not mention that permit and for good reason I see.

You see, Iowa, in order for someone to even purchase a handgun, requires them to get a permit to do so. You do not need a permit to buy a shotgun or rifle, but having a permit to buy a handgun allows one to bypass the need of a background check, just like having a concealed carry permit does.

The only added benefit a concealed carry permit has over a permit to acquire is allowing one to carry a loaded, unsecured weapon on their person or in their vehicle.

Are you fucking serious? That permit is required to purchase a handgun. That has nothing to do with the background check. Also, 70% of the firearms in the US are Rifles and Shotguns. The permit has nothing to do with that

Loaded and unsecured, no, unloaded and secured, you don't even need a permit to do so, though I'd imagine showing a "permit to acquire" in addition to having the weapon unloaded and secured would provide an officer the same amount of assurance that presenting a "permit to carry" would, since both are proof that one has went through the proper background checks to acquire either permit in the first place.

You would imagine. You do not even know what the permit does and you are telling us how officers will view it.

Zeconte:
Whereas if you're participating in a shooting competition and your gun breaks (the example given to counter this), why would a competitive shooter only own one gun or bring only one gun to a competition?

Let us see, how about because the anti-gun rules the TSA puts into place makes it nearly impossible to multiple guns without paying hundreds of dollars and taking the risk that they will destroy both of your guns.

Or how about the fact that LEOs would frown on people transporting dozens of firearms. When I go to three gun matches I usually go with 1-2 of my friends. I typically drive because I have a truck that can transport all of our gear. Now, a 3-gun match obviously requires 3 guns. You are telling me to double up on those firearms. However, when we go to those matches we usually do both standard matches and Iron Man matches (standard matches and Iron Man matches have different rules dictating what can be used). Which means that by myself I would have to bring 12 firearms under your logic. With my 1-2 friends it jumps to 24-36 firearms. Not even my truck can conceal that many firearms. And being this close to the Mexican border means that I can get randomly stopped and arrested for carrying that many firearms.

And if all your guns break at the same time, what kind of gun enthusiast are you to keep all of your guns in such a state of disrepair?

You do realize that these matches do not come to us right? We have to go to them. Why the hell would I drive all the way out to Ohio for a match if it would just come to me? I don't have access to my firearms when I am hundreds of miles away. Plus, I go to lots of foreign (and US) milsurp matches. That means that everybody there is using firearms the better part of 100 years old. Many of which have been through combat and have been left rusting in some armory until someone decided to sell them.

it does not justify allowing them to conceal carry

You have no proof that they are concealed carrying.

Basically, I was asking "and this benefit of getting a gun faster outweighs the potential danger of giving a completely blind person the right to carry a loaded gun around with him how exactly?" by pointing out just how unnecessary getting a gun immediately was opposed to ordering a gun and then picking it up some other day when it was convenient for you.

Just because you do not have shit to do does not mean the rest of us are so idle.

Abomination:
I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit.

Let me put it to you like this, if you were waiting in line at the grocery store and you said, "this sucks" and someone came up to you and asked, "why do you need to leave so fast, are you planning something", would you think that persons actions were reasonable?

Here is the thing, I do not want to wait in line. I have this special license that makes my buying firearms much quicker and more efficient. Why should I want to wait in line? Hell, why should I want to come back to a store days later in order to pick up something I purchased? That is not a rational thought under any circumstances. "I want to waste my time standing around doing nothing." Who the hell says that?

A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

Its primary function is whatever its master deems it to be. My safe queens have not destroyed anything under my ownership.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Or, I need to part a firearm in order to fix my competitive firearms.

Alternatively, I just don't want to stand in line and come back days later. The nearest gun shop to my house is 30 miles away. Why do I need to drive 120 miles when I can just drive 60? I might be willing to deal with it if y'all would allow the gun shop to mail my gun to me. But I doubt that is going to happen.

Abomination:
It is an item capable of - nay, DESIGNED for - incredible harm.

They are designed to do whatever their designer and master want them to do. And 90% of the time that purpose has nothing to do with harming another living being.

Its primary function creates a zone of lethality directly in front of it.

It is the same with a car and I have a distinct feeling that the "zone of lethality" in front of a car is far worse than what is in front of my 3-position guns. Let us see, getting hit by a car or getting hit with a .22LR bullet...hmmmm. What do you think?

Guns are tools. Their use, for good or ill, is dependent on its master.

Abomination:
Why are you so adverse to people conducting checks to ensure you're an individual who would have no reason to not be considered suitable for owning a gun?

In order to get a CHL you have to undergo a background check. The difference? With a CHL you only have to do it once every 5 years. That speeds the process along.

Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a world with semi-automatic weapons.

No, he lived in a world with automatic firearms.

thaluikhain:
If you want it to impulsively murder someone in the heat of the moment sort of thing, it'd give you time to stop and think.

Impulsively, like driving to a gun store, waiting in line, filling out a form, purchasing the gun, and driving back home.

If the killing intent is still there at that point then it is probably not going away.

farson135:
Impulsively, like driving to a gun store, waiting in line, filling out a form, purchasing the gun, and driving back home.

If the killing intent is still there at that point then it is probably not going away.

Oh certainly, it's not exactly a heat of the moment thing, but I couldn't say for sure that a cooling down period wouldn't/doesn't have any effect.

thaluikhain:

farson135:
Impulsively, like driving to a gun store, waiting in line, filling out a form, purchasing the gun, and driving back home.

If the killing intent is still there at that point then it is probably not going away.

Oh certainly, it's not exactly a heat of the moment thing, but I couldn't say for sure that a cooling down period wouldn't/doesn't have any effect.

Neither can I. However, as I said, I think that if a hour will not give a person enough time to reconsider then a few days will just give them more time to plan and/or stew in whatever anger is consuming them.

farson135:
Ok, then you have absolutely no evidence that the people you are talking about have gotten a license. The article was referring to the legally blind. So your point is invalid.

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

It's only the second sentence/paragraph of the second article. Not very easy to miss unless you didn't actually care to read it.

The ATF website did not mention that permit and for good reason I see.

... the ATF site I linked specifically listed what qualified as an alternative to a background check. Under Iowa, it clearly lists in no ambiguous terms: "Permits to acquire and permits to carry concealed weapons qualify."

You see, Iowa, in order for someone to even purchase a handgun, requires them to get a permit to do so. You do not need a permit to buy a shotgun or rifle, but having a permit to buy a handgun allows one to bypass the need of a background check, just like having a concealed carry permit does.

The only added benefit a concealed carry permit has over a permit to acquire is allowing one to carry a loaded, unsecured weapon on their person or in their vehicle.

Are you fucking serious? That permit is required to purchase a handgun. That has nothing to do with the background check. Also, 70% of the firearms in the US are Rifles and Shotguns. The permit has nothing to do with that.

Yes, I am serious. That permit is indeed required to purchase a handgun, which requires one to undergo a background check in order to acquire the permit. Because of this, it qualifies as a substitute for a background check when purchasing any firearm just the same as a concealed carry permit does. It also lists 28 states and 6 territories that do not accept any such permit as an alternative and require a background check regardless, while California accepts only "Entertainment Firearm Permits". So the only accurate statement you can make is that 20 (possibly 21 depending on Georgia's "firearm license" entails) out of the 50 states accept concealed carry permits as acceptable alternatives to bypass the background check, and 2 of those states require a special kind of concealed carry permit that specifically allows them to, while 5 states, Iowa included, have permits specifically regarding the purchase of handguns/firearms that also qualify.

Amazing the things you learn when you actually take the time to read, isn't it?

Zeconte:
It's only the second sentence/paragraph of the second article. Not very easy to miss unless you didn't actually care to read it.

Tell me, do you think I am an idiot or do you just not see it? For all of the evidence you have 100% of the people who get the license are legally blind. All they said was that they cannot discriminate against people for that (another fact that you have yet to address).

So the only accurate statement you can make is that 20 (possibly 21 depending on Georgia's "firearm license" entails) out of the 50 states accept concealed carry permits as acceptable alternatives to bypass the background check, and 2 of those states require a special kind of concealed carry permit that specifically allows them to, while 5 states, Iowa included, have permits specifically regarding the purchase of handguns/firearms that also qualify.

In other words, my point stands. Every state does not have to allow the same thing for a right to be wanted.

You and I both know that you are just deflecting. Admit you were wrong or stop.

Amazing the things you learn when you actually take the time to read, isn't it?

Yes, which is why you should try it sometime. Rifles and shotguns are still preferred firearms in the US. You have not addressed the FACT that the license you support does not have anything to do with 70% of all firearms in the US. In fact, it only deals with one classification of firearm. So if I only want to purchase rifles and shotguns why in the hell would I bother with a handgun permit to acquire when I can get an Iowa CHL which protects my open carrying of a rifle or shotgun? Also, guess what, a permit to carry acts as an alternative to the permit to acquire. And since CHLs have all kinds of other advantages, getting a CHL is more advantageous than getting a permit to acquire. In other words, your method is still inefficient. A fact that you continue to ignore.

farson135:

Zeconte:
It's only the second sentence/paragraph of the second article. Not very easy to miss unless you didn't actually care to read it.

Tell me, do you think I am an idiot or do you just not see it? For all of the evidence you have 100% of the people who get the license are legally blind. All they said was that they cannot discriminate against people for that (another fact that you have yet to address).

Honestly, I think you're pretty belligerent and unwilling to see any point of view other than your own. As for all of the evidence, considering we only have a couple of people that statements were taken from and no record keeping done on the matter, as well as a sheriff making an explicit statement that he sees no reason someone who was completely blind couldn't be given a firearm and safely

So the only accurate statement you can make is that 20 (possibly 21 depending on Georgia's "firearm license" entails) out of the 50 states accept concealed carry permits as acceptable alternatives to bypass the background check, and 2 of those states require a special kind of concealed carry permit that specifically allows them to, while 5 states, Iowa included, have permits specifically regarding the purchase of handguns/firearms that also qualify.

In other words, my point stands. Every state does not have to allow the same thing for a right to be wanted.

You and I both know that you are just deflecting. Admit you were wrong or stop.[/quote]
No, your point does not stand, considering not even half of the country provides all these extra benefits you touted as a justifying reason for getting a concealed carry permit, and some states even already implement something akin to my suggestion, which you tried to reject outright as unnecessary and inefficient.

Yes, which is why you should try it sometime. Rifles and shotguns are still preferred firearms in the US. You have not addressed the FACT that the license you support does not have anything to do with 70% of all firearms in the US.

Umm, explain to me again, how is it possible to conceal a rifle or shotgun on your person? In other words, concealed carry permits do not have anything to do with 70% of all firearms in the US either, since they are too large to comfortably conceal upon your person. But, as you say, even if you're not intending on concealing a handgun upon your person, doesn't mean there aren't other benefits to getting a concealed carry permit. This same logic applies to permits to acquire as well.

In fact, it only deals with one classification of firearm. So if I only want to purchase rifles and shotguns why in the hell would I bother with a handgun permit to acquire when I can get an Iowa CHL which protects my open carrying of a rifle or shotgun? Also, guess what, a permit to carry acts as an alternative to the permit to acquire. And since CHLs have all kinds of other advantages, getting a CHL is more advantageous than getting a permit to acquire. In other words, your method is still inefficient. A fact that you continue to ignore.

Except, I have admitted repeatedly that there are, in fact, more benefits to a concealed carry permit, but have also pointed out that for people who do not need/want, or in some cases, probably should not have, those extra advantages, this would be an effective alternative to give them all those other benefits. Once again, by your logic, government issued ID's should not exist because everyone could just get a driver's license instead as it would be more efficient.

Zeconte:
Honestly, I think you're pretty belligerent and unwilling to see any point of view other than your own.

Coming from you that statement is irrelevant. You opened up hostilities with a needlessly provocative statement. Then you accuse me of belligerence for disagreeing with you. Throughout you have failed to prove a single one of your points.

As for all of the evidence, considering we only have a couple of people that statements were taken from and no record keeping done on the matter, as well as a sheriff making an explicit statement that he sees no reason someone who was completely blind couldn't be given a firearm and safely

And no evidence to show your fears to be grounded in reality.

No, your point does not stand, considering not even half of the country provides all these extra benefits you touted as a justifying reason for getting a concealed carry permit, and some states even already implement something akin to my suggestion, which you tried to reject outright as unnecessary and inefficient.

First of all, we were talking about Iowa. YOU made it about the entire country.

Second of all, despite your weak defense it is an advantage provided by CHLs. You are just trying to nitpick because your point has been proven incorrect.

Umm, explain to me again, how is it possible to conceal a rifle or shotgun on your person? In other words, concealed carry permits do not have anything to do with 70% of all firearms in the US either, since they are too large to comfortably conceal upon your person.


First of all, Concealed Carry also counts when it comes to carrying in vehicles (in some states).

Second of all, in Iowa a CHL also doubles as an Open Carry Permit. Technically I should not call it a CHL because it is a "permit to carry". Try paying attention.

But, as you say, even if you're not intending on concealing a handgun upon your person, doesn't mean there aren't other benefits to getting a concealed carry permit. This same logic applies to permits to acquire as well.

I outlined several examples of special rights given to CHLs.

Except, I have admitted repeatedly that there are, in fact, more benefits to a concealed carry permit, but have also pointed out that for people who do not need/want, or in some cases, probably should not have, those extra advantages, this would be an effective alternative to give them all those other benefits.

No it would not. It does not help me in the slightest when traveling and it does nothing for transportation of firearms. And it will not help me with the police. Nor would it help me out of state. Just admit you were wrong.

Once again, by your logic, government issued ID's should not exist because everyone could just get a driver's license instead as it would be more efficient.

By your logic that would require both the driver's license and the ID to have the same requirements. Effectively there is no significant difference in obtaining either permit. Provide one more form and pay a bit more money. Big woop. To get an ID you just have to provide enough documentation to prove that you are you and pay a fee. For a driver's license you have to go through a very annoying class, sit in the DMV at least twice, pay a fee, maybe go through an actual driving class, and finally drive a car around with someone watching you. Big difference. For the longest time a friend of mine refused to get a driver's license because he did not want the hassle of trying to get one (not to mention the fact that he did not have a car).

farson135:

Abomination:
I don't see how it's tinfoil hat shit.

Let me put it to you like this, if you were waiting in line at the grocery store and you said, "this sucks" and someone came up to you and asked, "why do you need to leave so fast, are you planning something", would you think that persons actions were reasonable?

Not at all, because you're in a grocery store trying to purchase groceries, an item that nobody has any problem with someone else possessing because groceries can not be employed in a lethal manner very effectively.

Here is the thing, I do not want to wait in line. I have this special license that makes my buying firearms much quicker and more efficient. Why should I want to wait in line? Hell, why should I want to come back to a store days later in order to pick up something I purchased? That is not a rational thought under any circumstances. "I want to waste my time standing around doing nothing." Who the hell says that?

It's not about what you want, it's about what the public wants. And they want security in knowing that not just anyone is going to be handed a firearm.

A gun is a responsibility, it's a dangerous device and its primary function is destruction.

Its primary function is whatever its master deems it to be. My safe queens have not destroyed anything under my ownership.

A gun's function is that when you pull the trigger a projectile is fired from the device that will damage anything organic, and many inorganic things, in its path.

I am not calling it an immoral device - but it most certainly is a WEAPON.

If someone needs a gun "right now" then perhaps dialing 911 is the best option, rather than trying to arm themselves.

Now if it's for a purpose other than killing/damaging something I'm certain they can wait 2 days. The display case isn't going anywhere or the shooting range isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Or, I need to part a firearm in order to fix my competitive firearms.

Alternatively, I just don't want to stand in line and come back days later. The nearest gun shop to my house is 30 miles away. Why do I need to drive 120 miles when I can just drive 60? I might be willing to deal with it if y'all would allow the gun shop to mail my gun to me. But I doubt that is going to happen.

Yeah. That sucks.

If it's such an issue I would suggest taking up a hobby that doesn't deal in dangerous devices then.

Abomination:
It is an item capable of - nay, DESIGNED for - incredible harm.

They are designed to do whatever their designer and master want them to do. And 90% of the time that purpose has nothing to do with harming another living being.

And that's exactly what the check is for - to ensure the "master" of the item isn't someone who is going to use the item for harm.

And yes they're designed to harm. A pencil is designed to write. A cup is designed to contain liquid for drinking. A gun is designed to fire bullets. Bullets fired from a gun cause harm.

Its primary function creates a zone of lethality directly in front of it.

It is the same with a car and I have a distinct feeling that the "zone of lethality" in front of a car is far worse than what is in front of my 3-position guns. Let us see, getting hit by a car or getting hit with a .22LR bullet...hmmmm. What do you think?

A deranged individual isn't going to be able to keep a "loaded car" in their pocket. The avenue for using a car to kill people is significantly more limited than using a gun.

Guns are tools. Their use, for good or ill, is dependent on its master.

And that's what the check is for. To ensure the prospective master of this dangerous and deadly tool isn't the type of person who will use it in the most obviously dangerous way to themselves and/or others.

Abomination:
Why are you so adverse to people conducting checks to ensure you're an individual who would have no reason to not be considered suitable for owning a gun?

In order to get a CHL you have to undergo a background check. The difference? With a CHL you only have to do it once every 5 years. That speeds the process along.

Never knew someone who was able to kill someone else with a license at 30 yards.

Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a world with semi-automatic weapons.

No, he lived in a world with automatic firearms.

Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

Karma168:
Isn't the 2nd amendment designed to ensure a civilian militia can function

NO.

NOOOOOOOO.

The first time anyone even argued that the second amendment was exclusively about the right of militia's to exist was in the 20th century. Well over a century after the constitution had been ratified.

With DC v Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects the right for private ownership of firearms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Even if it was just to protect the functioning of militia's, many militia's in the US were a requirement for all able body men to be a part of. You were required to buy a gun, unless you could not afford one, in which case the militia would buy one FOR YOU. If you want to argue the writers meant the militia, you have to go by their definition of militia. So, you get drafted (assuming your a man and live in the US) and you legally HAVE to own and show you can use a rifle yearly.

Abomination:

No, he lived in a world with automatic firearms.

Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

May I present to you, the Puckle Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun

The Continental Congress almost did buy some kind of semi-auto rifle, called the "Belton Flintlock," ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock ) but the Congress just couldn't afford the high price Belton put on his rifles. Sadly, not only did none of the few prototypes (which by all accounts worked) but also the designs for them as well.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked