Another small step for the Second Amendment
Ian, you make plenty of good points. I think that any law that bans or demands ownership of an item have an "opt out" at the very least. It isn't inconsistent with my belief that there shouldn't be such a law in the first place. I don't agree with sin taxes, helmet laws, health food laws, gun control laws, no smoking laws, etc. and agree with you that proper education and information given to people should be used to make it a personal choice and personal responsibility issue.
Having said all of that, I actually do have proof that (lawful) gun ownership is useful in determining who is more likely to be polite out in the world. (lawful) Gun-owners have a much lower percentage of crime of any type in their group than Non-gun-owners. (DOJ stats back that up). Regardless, (lawful) Gun-owners (in most States) have something that no Non-gun-owner has. We carry a "good citizen card". Mine attests to the fact that I have had a complete FBI background check, been fingerprinted and photographed with my information going into the police database, have never been convicted of a felony OR any domestic violence assault/abuse OR had a DUI/DWI/OUI. It also indicates that I have had a certain amount of basic safety training in firearms and that (in Massachusetts at least) I've been taught the laws on safe transportation and safe storage to keep firearms out of little hands. In fact, I know of a company that, because of Government contract work, requires it's employees to have a government background check. The background check done to get a License to Carry (LTC) or a Firearms Identification Card (FID) in Massachusetts (which is the same as most States) that is done through the FBI is more thorough and complete than the one required for their government contract work! Therefore, to save everyone the higher cost of an independent background check, the Company policy is that all employees are required to obtain and maintain their LTC! Works out for the best. No one is required to actually purchase a firearm, just get the license. So...
Who has their "good citizen card"?
Having said all of that, I actually do have proof that (lawful) gun ownership is useful in determining who is more likely to be polite out in the world. (lawful) Gun-owners have a much lower percentage of crime of any type in their group than Non-gun-owners. (DOJ stats back that up). Regardless, (lawful) Gun-owners (in most States) have something that no Non-gun-owner has. We carry a "good citizen card". Mine attests to the fact that I have had a complete FBI background check, been fingerprinted and photographed with my information going into the police database, have never been convicted of a felony OR any domestic violence assault/abuse OR had a DUI/DWI/OUI. It also indicates that I have had a certain amount of basic safety training in firearms and that (in Massachusetts at least) I've been taught the laws on safe transportation and safe storage to keep firearms out of little hands. In fact, I know of a company that, because of Government contract work, requires it's employees to have a government background check. The background check done to get a License to Carry (LTC) or a Firearms Identification Card (FID) in Massachusetts (which is the same as most States) that is done through the FBI is more thorough and complete than the one required for their government contract work! Therefore, to save everyone the higher cost of an independent background check, the Company policy is that all employees are required to obtain and maintain their LTC! Works out for the best. No one is required to actually purchase a firearm, just get the license. So...
Who has their "good citizen card"?
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
I proudly carry my Virginia 'good citizen card'! Good name for it.
In addition to submitting prints to the FBI, in Virginia one must also submit prints to the State Police for a background check (the state sends the prints back, the FBI does not). Any prior felony will prevent you from getting the card. As will a dishonorable discharge from the military. Illegal aliens need not apply. Juvenile offenses will be considered, as well as a restraining order by an ex-spouse even if you have no criminal record. The records will also be checked for a myriad of mental health conditions. The card is then tied to your DMV records.
When I teach a permit course, I warn people to be certain they have no skeletons hidden in the closet as they will be discovered. Then you have the problem of illegally applying.
Once upon a time I knew the statistics regarding crime in VA by card holders. The percent of cards revoked for any reason was something on the order of one tenth of one percent. Show me any law, any where, with that kind of compliance by any group.
Rich
In addition to submitting prints to the FBI, in Virginia one must also submit prints to the State Police for a background check (the state sends the prints back, the FBI does not). Any prior felony will prevent you from getting the card. As will a dishonorable discharge from the military. Illegal aliens need not apply. Juvenile offenses will be considered, as well as a restraining order by an ex-spouse even if you have no criminal record. The records will also be checked for a myriad of mental health conditions. The card is then tied to your DMV records.
When I teach a permit course, I warn people to be certain they have no skeletons hidden in the closet as they will be discovered. Then you have the problem of illegally applying.
Once upon a time I knew the statistics regarding crime in VA by card holders. The percent of cards revoked for any reason was something on the order of one tenth of one percent. Show me any law, any where, with that kind of compliance by any group.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
Very good, but it is like preaching to the choir.
The "hoplophobes" are too engrossed in their own "phobias" to even discern this type of language.
One quick question, Rich... do you know of any cases where an LTC was denied because of the sexual orientation of an applicant, as discovered by a background check?
The "hoplophobes" are too engrossed in their own "phobias" to even discern this type of language.
One quick question, Rich... do you know of any cases where an LTC was denied because of the sexual orientation of an applicant, as discovered by a background check?
Van
Panther, you're certainly right about all the background data check stuff. I think we're both right in different ways because I was referring to the group of people that has guns in general (some quality citizens who obtained them legally and some exceptionally unsavory people who got them however) and you were referring to the licensed segment.
There's certainly a multitiered society with various levels of individual responsibility.... a number of the responsible types decided to obtain firearms legally and creates a class of quality owning people. I cannot dispute that legal gun owners are certainly a responsible bunch--and more importantly, I've never given the impression that I want to dispute it. Opposing forced gun ownership imposed by an overly intrusive government is a far cry from challenging the quality of those who opt to legally own.
Of course, everyone who chooses NOT to own, or feels they don't need one but isn't opposed to owning, firing, self defense, property rights, individual responsibility and all that, is automatically left with the dregs that CANNOT legally get guns. This is of course not a fair way to comment on the personal characteristics of, for example, responsible people who are nongunowning, but vigorous self defense advocates, such as myself, OR the antigun soccer mom crowd, who also are generally tax paying, law abiding citizens, if annoyingly shrill about the gun laws they espouse. That's just guilt by association. You wrote: "regardless, (lawful) Gun-owners (in most States) have something that no Non-gun-owner has. We carry a "good citizen card"."
In response, I carry a full medical license. How do you think one obtains one of those? You're also the last person I'd have expected to hear endorsing the government's assessment of who makes a good or bad citizen--what about that guy who defended his family with a gun not yet licensed? He's off that list unfairly. And there are a bazillion pople who COULD get gun licenses who haven't. I suggest that it's possible to laud the legal gun owners without implying there's something defective of everyone else. I'll start: their record is exemplary but they're not alone in that.
Van, I eagerly await hearing which hoplophobes are failing to discern which language on this thread and how--and also what relevance, if any, sexual orientation has to gun ownership. Rich had contact data on the Pink Pistols, for anyone interested in dispelling stereotypes.
There's certainly a multitiered society with various levels of individual responsibility.... a number of the responsible types decided to obtain firearms legally and creates a class of quality owning people. I cannot dispute that legal gun owners are certainly a responsible bunch--and more importantly, I've never given the impression that I want to dispute it. Opposing forced gun ownership imposed by an overly intrusive government is a far cry from challenging the quality of those who opt to legally own.
Of course, everyone who chooses NOT to own, or feels they don't need one but isn't opposed to owning, firing, self defense, property rights, individual responsibility and all that, is automatically left with the dregs that CANNOT legally get guns. This is of course not a fair way to comment on the personal characteristics of, for example, responsible people who are nongunowning, but vigorous self defense advocates, such as myself, OR the antigun soccer mom crowd, who also are generally tax paying, law abiding citizens, if annoyingly shrill about the gun laws they espouse. That's just guilt by association. You wrote: "regardless, (lawful) Gun-owners (in most States) have something that no Non-gun-owner has. We carry a "good citizen card"."
In response, I carry a full medical license. How do you think one obtains one of those? You're also the last person I'd have expected to hear endorsing the government's assessment of who makes a good or bad citizen--what about that guy who defended his family with a gun not yet licensed? He's off that list unfairly. And there are a bazillion pople who COULD get gun licenses who haven't. I suggest that it's possible to laud the legal gun owners without implying there's something defective of everyone else. I'll start: their record is exemplary but they're not alone in that.
Van, I eagerly await hearing which hoplophobes are failing to discern which language on this thread and how--and also what relevance, if any, sexual orientation has to gun ownership. Rich had contact data on the Pink Pistols, for anyone interested in dispelling stereotypes.
--Ian
Van, I eagerly await hearing which hoplophobes are failing to discern which language on this thread
No need for me to answer this, other than if the shoe fits, then by all means wear it.
You fail to grasp the question, and are giving it unintended connotations. Your problem.and also what relevance, if any, sexual orientation has to gun ownership.
It is not about relevance, it is about the possibility of abuse and prejudice by the licensing authorities, and there are many, that is the question.
Same as in denying LTCs to women by many “enlightened” police chiefs, in some towns.
Case closed.
Van
Regarding obllique references to hoplophobia, I found the following reference online:
"Jeff Cooper coined the term "Hoplophobe" to describe a person who lives in fear of an inanimate object. The Hoplophobe does not recognize that there is a living, breathing human being in possession of the inanimate object. (See: Bad Gun - Liberals attack the gun issue.) Therefore the Hoplophobe chooses to have a relationship with an inanimate object rather than with the sentient being in control of the object. Such a person is, by definition, irrational. Such a person is, by association, insane."
http://billstclair.com/blog/011202.html
While irrationality has little to do with insanity, I'll run with their definition... The word generally seems to be used to describe people that have an irrational fear of weapons.
Since I have happily trained with bo, tonfa, sai, knife, escrima stick, kubuton, bokken, and shinai and am not opposed to my or others' gun ownership, do not espouse disarming citizens, and because I encourage people who are serious about self defense to carry a weapon, the comments about the irrational hoplophobes and their phobias apparently referred to someone else. My mistake. I cannot figure out who that might be, however, after reviewing the list of posters to this thread, but the shoe seems to be a size 2, and I wear a 13.
Whoever these mysterious hoplophobes are, I was also unable to find any evidence that they were confused about what's been written here. The logic not only looks good, it's consistent with popular themes of individual rights as established by most posters to Panther's thread and supported by the moderator in this thread. Always happy to go back and review for errors, however, if specifics are provided.
Otherwise, thanks for sticking up for the right of nonheteros to carry! I was of course not giving your question unintended conotations, but merely expressing my interest in hearing what you meant by asking it. Thanks fo replying.
"Jeff Cooper coined the term "Hoplophobe" to describe a person who lives in fear of an inanimate object. The Hoplophobe does not recognize that there is a living, breathing human being in possession of the inanimate object. (See: Bad Gun - Liberals attack the gun issue.) Therefore the Hoplophobe chooses to have a relationship with an inanimate object rather than with the sentient being in control of the object. Such a person is, by definition, irrational. Such a person is, by association, insane."
http://billstclair.com/blog/011202.html
While irrationality has little to do with insanity, I'll run with their definition... The word generally seems to be used to describe people that have an irrational fear of weapons.
Since I have happily trained with bo, tonfa, sai, knife, escrima stick, kubuton, bokken, and shinai and am not opposed to my or others' gun ownership, do not espouse disarming citizens, and because I encourage people who are serious about self defense to carry a weapon, the comments about the irrational hoplophobes and their phobias apparently referred to someone else. My mistake. I cannot figure out who that might be, however, after reviewing the list of posters to this thread, but the shoe seems to be a size 2, and I wear a 13.
Whoever these mysterious hoplophobes are, I was also unable to find any evidence that they were confused about what's been written here. The logic not only looks good, it's consistent with popular themes of individual rights as established by most posters to Panther's thread and supported by the moderator in this thread. Always happy to go back and review for errors, however, if specifics are provided.
Otherwise, thanks for sticking up for the right of nonheteros to carry! I was of course not giving your question unintended conotations, but merely expressing my interest in hearing what you meant by asking it. Thanks fo replying.
--Ian
Right you are this time. It was a general comment directed at antigun people at large, not to the people contributing to the discussion here.and because I encourage people who are serious about self defense to carry a weapon, the comments about the irrational hoplophobes and their phobias MUST have referred to someone else. My mistake.
It would help in not being too "thin skinned" as GEM would say.
As for sticking up for the right to carry for all, right again.
I have attended trials of friends who sued the towns for their police chief's denials of LTCs.
Some of the language, and attitudes on display by the town's appointed counsel, backing up the chief's denial, would make any reasonable, law abiding person, cringe in disgust.
Almost to the point where the applicant is made to feel like a freak or second class citizen.
Panther knows the stories.
Van
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
To Ian: Since VA is a CCW 'shall issue' state I do not know how anyone could be denied a permit based on sexual preferences. The paperwork does not request such info. However, should there have been a police documented domestic disturbance or a restraining order requsted by a former significant other for any reason, the permit would likely be held up or denied.
In states that require interviews by the local police, with final decisions made by the Chief etc I can see how anyone could be denied for any 'personal' problems, perceved or otherwise. NY state is a good example. Also, celebs seem to get preferential treatment under this system.
Rich
In states that require interviews by the local police, with final decisions made by the Chief etc I can see how anyone could be denied for any 'personal' problems, perceved or otherwise. NY state is a good example. Also, celebs seem to get preferential treatment under this system.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
Good advice--for all--although they say, "once bitten, twice shy."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread with a question:
Does anyone here support obligatory gun ownership? Those replying yes are encouraged to mention a few examples of other government interventions they find acceptable or unacceptable with contrasts and comparisons.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread with a question:
Does anyone here support obligatory gun ownership? Those replying yes are encouraged to mention a few examples of other government interventions they find acceptable or unacceptable with contrasts and comparisons.
--Ian
My reference to a "good citizen card" was to show what lawful gunowners go through to exercise a Constitutional Right. (Can you imagine the outrage if people were told they had to jump through similar hoops in order to print and hand out political position sheets or privae newspapers? 
) Just as Rich points out for VA, in MA the State Police also get the prints, as well as the Criminal History Systems Board. In MA, all the same things occur as Rich points out for VA, but we don't get any fingerprints back. Also, while the SJC of MA (Supreme Judicial Court, highest state court) has said that it is unreasonable to require released sex offenders to provide accurate change of address under penalties of arrest & imprisonment, AND the SJC of MA recently ruled that same sex couples being denied marriage licenses unConstitutionally creates a second class of citizens, the fact is that they have upheld the requirement for a lawful gunowner (recall the background checks done and requirements for getting the LTC in the first place) to provide a change of address within 30 days or face arrest & imprisonment! Now... isn't that making us second class citizens for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT? Just because I state and maintain my opposition to the Government intrusion and requirements for certain licensing and just because I indicate my having obtained certain licensing (thus being a law-abiding person) does not mean that I agree with the licensing nor does it make me a hypocrite for obtaining the license. As far as obtaining a full medical license, the information I have (which is a little old) does not have a prohibition on getting that license because of a 10, 20, 30, or more year old "domestic violence" charge. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you are not a U.S. Citizen. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you are dishonorably discharged from the military. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you have prior DUI/DWI/OUI convictions. AND they don't immediately revoke that license if any of those things occurs after you have gotten it. With the LTC, if anything happens that would have prevented you from getting it in the first place, they immediately revoke the license and come to confiscate any firearms you have. So... No, it isn't a "good citizen card", hate to disappoint you.
Whether one could get a license wasn't my point. My point was that having obtained that license, I carry Government documented PROOF that I am a good citizen. I carry Government documented PROOF that I have a clean criminal record... no felonies, no DUIs, no domestic violence. So, it also indicates (because it shows documented training in addition to the violence free, clean criminal record) that I am a calm and rational person who can exercise good judgement in various situations. I sincerely doubt there are a "bazillion" people who could get firearms license but who just haven't (do we have a bazillion citizens in the U.S.?), I do agree that there are lots of people who could get them, but haven't. That still doesn't mean that I think they should have to or that I think they're bad if they don't. What it means is that you took the statement I made about myself and what it means to have gotten a license and made it into some sort of condemnation of those who chose not to obtain that license, but who could. Regardless, I still have a "good citizen card" in my wallet and they don't. Given the fact that obtaining a good citizen card (firearm license) doesn't require purchase, possession, ownership or use of a firearm, then I think you've influenced me in that direction! I think that if you do not take the time to take a course, give your fingerprints, have a photograph submitted, and submit to a complete background check with all the requirements and obtain a "good citizen card", then the only proof you have that you are a good citizen is my personal knowledge of you. If I don't know you... too bad. Why shouldn't everyone who can obtain the license get the license! There's no requirement to actually have a gun, so what's the problem?
Now, will we hear the outcries against big brother and government intervention? If yes, then why should we require them of anyone? If no, then I guess there are about a "bazillion" people that need to go to their local licensing authority. Oh, wait... Some States don't even allow it. Too bad. And even in MA (one of the 34 States that does allow for a CCW license), in many cities and towns the license process is delayed by 3-6+ months! Can you imagine the outcry if people were told by the RMV that it would be 3-6+ months before they got their driver's license?!?! And look at how deadly that guided missle is!
On a final note, You don't have to be a homosexual to be a member of the Pink Pistols. I happen to be heterosexual and I'm a member. Good people, been shooting with more than a few of them. Took and taught firearms classes with some of them and had them on my Radio show many times (when I had the radio show). Wanna see my membership card? It doesn't mean I'm gay or a gunowner, it just means I believe in Freedom.
) Just as Rich points out for VA, in MA the State Police also get the prints, as well as the Criminal History Systems Board. In MA, all the same things occur as Rich points out for VA, but we don't get any fingerprints back. Also, while the SJC of MA (Supreme Judicial Court, highest state court) has said that it is unreasonable to require released sex offenders to provide accurate change of address under penalties of arrest & imprisonment, AND the SJC of MA recently ruled that same sex couples being denied marriage licenses unConstitutionally creates a second class of citizens, the fact is that they have upheld the requirement for a lawful gunowner (recall the background checks done and requirements for getting the LTC in the first place) to provide a change of address within 30 days or face arrest & imprisonment! Now... isn't that making us second class citizens for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT? Just because I state and maintain my opposition to the Government intrusion and requirements for certain licensing and just because I indicate my having obtained certain licensing (thus being a law-abiding person) does not mean that I agree with the licensing nor does it make me a hypocrite for obtaining the license. As far as obtaining a full medical license, the information I have (which is a little old) does not have a prohibition on getting that license because of a 10, 20, 30, or more year old "domestic violence" charge. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you are not a U.S. Citizen. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you are dishonorably discharged from the military. There isn't a prohibition on getting that license if you have prior DUI/DWI/OUI convictions. AND they don't immediately revoke that license if any of those things occurs after you have gotten it. With the LTC, if anything happens that would have prevented you from getting it in the first place, they immediately revoke the license and come to confiscate any firearms you have. So... No, it isn't a "good citizen card", hate to disappoint you.Whether one could get a license wasn't my point. My point was that having obtained that license, I carry Government documented PROOF that I am a good citizen. I carry Government documented PROOF that I have a clean criminal record... no felonies, no DUIs, no domestic violence. So, it also indicates (because it shows documented training in addition to the violence free, clean criminal record) that I am a calm and rational person who can exercise good judgement in various situations. I sincerely doubt there are a "bazillion" people who could get firearms license but who just haven't (do we have a bazillion citizens in the U.S.?), I do agree that there are lots of people who could get them, but haven't. That still doesn't mean that I think they should have to or that I think they're bad if they don't. What it means is that you took the statement I made about myself and what it means to have gotten a license and made it into some sort of condemnation of those who chose not to obtain that license, but who could. Regardless, I still have a "good citizen card" in my wallet and they don't. Given the fact that obtaining a good citizen card (firearm license) doesn't require purchase, possession, ownership or use of a firearm, then I think you've influenced me in that direction! I think that if you do not take the time to take a course, give your fingerprints, have a photograph submitted, and submit to a complete background check with all the requirements and obtain a "good citizen card", then the only proof you have that you are a good citizen is my personal knowledge of you. If I don't know you... too bad. Why shouldn't everyone who can obtain the license get the license! There's no requirement to actually have a gun, so what's the problem?
Now, will we hear the outcries against big brother and government intervention? If yes, then why should we require them of anyone? If no, then I guess there are about a "bazillion" people that need to go to their local licensing authority. Oh, wait... Some States don't even allow it. Too bad. And even in MA (one of the 34 States that does allow for a CCW license), in many cities and towns the license process is delayed by 3-6+ months! Can you imagine the outcry if people were told by the RMV that it would be 3-6+ months before they got their driver's license?!?! And look at how deadly that guided missle is!
On a final note, You don't have to be a homosexual to be a member of the Pink Pistols. I happen to be heterosexual and I'm a member. Good people, been shooting with more than a few of them. Took and taught firearms classes with some of them and had them on my Radio show many times (when I had the radio show). Wanna see my membership card? It doesn't mean I'm gay or a gunowner, it just means I believe in Freedom.
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
And another step back.....
Supreme Court Refuses to Confirm Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
What gets me about the Supreme Court and the Federal Government is that the Bush administration's position is that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms, yet they keep discouraging the courts from affirming that right. Maddeningly confusing.
It also tells me that the Bush administration doesn't really care about our rights at all. But that's fodder for another day.
Gene
What gets me about the Supreme Court and the Federal Government is that the Bush administration's position is that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms, yet they keep discouraging the courts from affirming that right. Maddeningly confusing.
It also tells me that the Bush administration doesn't really care about our rights at all. But that's fodder for another day.
Gene
Re: And another step back.....
Gene DeMambro wrote:It also tells me that the Bush administration doesn't really care about our rights at all. But that's fodder for another day.
And there you have it... I give Bush II lots of credit and think he's better than his predecessor (Mr. & Mrs. President) as I previously pointed out. BUT, (also as previously stated many times) I have an equal opportunity bias in these matters. I don't really care which political party one is affiliated with, whe you refuse to acknowledge, work to destroy or deny, or otherwise undermine the Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties of honest lawful American Citizens, then you have moved from the legislative realm of being a Representative of "We, The People" into being just another LegisTraitor...
Don't those oaths still say "all enemies, foreign and domestic"?
Oh, I forgot... it was on one of those News magazines about 6-7 years ago... 90+% of those in Congress don't actually swear the oath of office! They just show up to the cocktail party and do a few motions!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
Panther, I am unable to follow most of your post on licensing. I have not:
--said that I think you should have to go through those hoops to get it, or get it at all
--said I think you should be treated more harshly than the sex offenders
--said that you are a hypocrite for getting one
I also don't see how its relevant what someone's citizenship is, or whether someone is dishonorably discharged from the military (in SOME cases), or whether was a drunk 30 years ago (sure, it's harder to get a gun license but does that tell us about citizenship now?). There are some differences with the medical license but these are proportional to the different tasks or permissions involved with the license (were YOU required to show a malpractice record? No. Does it matter? No.). Am I asking YOU to go prove you can get a medical license? No. Who cares?? I'm only asking that we not chortle about people who don't carry as if they're NOT quality citizens.
"My point was that having obtained that license, I carry Government documented PROOF that I am a good citizen."
Swell... what you have, actually, is government documented proof the government does not know you to be a bad citizen. All killers have clean records until they're caught and many aren't. Didn't that guy who capped the prank playing, fleeing teen and the japanese exchange student who was lost both have gun licenses? Are they top citizens??
Anyway, I'm not sure what all this licensing stuff has to do with the question at hand except as summarzied thusly: The licensed gun owners have clean records and are not known to be anything but upstanding citizens, but this is no discredit to the large majority of nongun owners who are also good citizens. No one is saying anything about the appropriateness of licensing or how it is done.
Now does anyone want to defend FORCING gun ownership on everyone? To echo Panther's question, that makes about as much sense as forcing CAR ownership on everyone.
--said that I think you should have to go through those hoops to get it, or get it at all
--said I think you should be treated more harshly than the sex offenders
--said that you are a hypocrite for getting one
I also don't see how its relevant what someone's citizenship is, or whether someone is dishonorably discharged from the military (in SOME cases), or whether was a drunk 30 years ago (sure, it's harder to get a gun license but does that tell us about citizenship now?). There are some differences with the medical license but these are proportional to the different tasks or permissions involved with the license (were YOU required to show a malpractice record? No. Does it matter? No.). Am I asking YOU to go prove you can get a medical license? No. Who cares?? I'm only asking that we not chortle about people who don't carry as if they're NOT quality citizens.
"My point was that having obtained that license, I carry Government documented PROOF that I am a good citizen."
Swell... what you have, actually, is government documented proof the government does not know you to be a bad citizen. All killers have clean records until they're caught and many aren't. Didn't that guy who capped the prank playing, fleeing teen and the japanese exchange student who was lost both have gun licenses? Are they top citizens??
Anyway, I'm not sure what all this licensing stuff has to do with the question at hand except as summarzied thusly: The licensed gun owners have clean records and are not known to be anything but upstanding citizens, but this is no discredit to the large majority of nongun owners who are also good citizens. No one is saying anything about the appropriateness of licensing or how it is done.
Now does anyone want to defend FORCING gun ownership on everyone? To echo Panther's question, that makes about as much sense as forcing CAR ownership on everyone.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
I find that a bit hard to believe, as taking the oath of office and being seated in the Congressional Chamber is a crowning achievement in lives of the newly elected Senators and Representatives. Usually, family and loved ones accompany them and look on with pride.
Disturbing if true...
But then again, and unless I'm reading it wrong, there is no requirement for Senators of Representativs to swear and Oath or Affrimation before taking office. Enlightenment eagerly accepted.
Gene
Disturbing if true...
But then again, and unless I'm reading it wrong, there is no requirement for Senators of Representativs to swear and Oath or Affrimation before taking office. Enlightenment eagerly accepted.
Gene
