The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

HisServant

New member
For the record then: You fully support untrained, unqualified people carrying loaded fire arms and using them in public.

Who is to determined what the qualifications are?.. You?.. Me?.. some bureaucrat somewhere?... its a meaningless slippery slope.

Does someone that uses a gun specifically for hunting need to be qualified for close combat?... most guns in the country ARE used for hunting.. fyi.
 

HisServant

New member
A self-righteous passive aggressive who sits on his hands does nobody any good. If you have anything constructive to add to the thread knock yourself out.

And you know nothing about me... lol.

Discharging of fire arms within the limits of the Borough where I am President of Borough Council is against the law. And I see no reason to change that law. It in no way infringes upon the rights of people to bear arms.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Who is to determined what the qualifications are?.. You?.. Me?.. some bureaucrat somewhere?... its a meaningless slippery slope.
Hmm, lets see... Don't we have police departments that routinely deal with active shooting situations? Seems to me that the people who make up or police departments would be a great resource for setting up the training programs. They can teach the people about guns and their use and situational awareness as well as the legal ramifications of actually pulling your gun and using it.

Does someone that uses a gun specifically for hunting need to be qualified for close combat?... most guns in the country ARE used for hunting.. fyi.
Nobody uses a hand gun for hunting. Nobody conceal carries a rifle.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
And you know nothing about me... lol.

Discharging of fire arms within the limits of the Borough where I am President of Borough Council is against the law. And I see no reason to change that law. It in no way infringes upon the rights of people to bear arms.
Actually, it does. If they actually fire their gun to protect their family then they are guilty of firing a gun with in city limits. It prevents them from practicing with their weapon so that they can remain proficient.
 

HisServant

New member
Hmm, lets see... Don't we have police departments that routinely deal with active shooting situations? Seems to me that the people who make up or police departments would be a great resource for setting up the training programs. They can teach the people about guns and their use and situational awareness as well as the legal ramifications of actually pulling your gun and using it.

So you think that underfunded and shrinking police departments around the country are going to be willing to take on the task to train individual citizens on how to use their guns like the police do?

Heck, we are having to regionalize the police in our area because the administrative and contract requirements imposed by the state on local municipalities are getting quite expensive and onerous.

Excuse me while I bust out in audible laughter.

Nobody uses a hand gun for hunting. Nobody conceal carries a rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting
 

HisServant

New member
Actually, it does. If they actually fire their gun to protect their family then they are guilty of firing a gun with in city limits. It prevents them from practicing with their weapon so that they can remain proficient.

There are plenty of places outside the borough with smaller population densities that are more suitable for fire arm training... heck, there is a state game lands less then half a mile away.

FYI, An indoor shooting range is permissible within our zoning ordinances should a business wish to set one up.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Who is to determined what the qualifications are?.. You?.. Me?.. some bureaucrat somewhere?... its a meaningless slippery slope.
Like determining who is qualified to operate motor vehicles and who is not is a "meaningless slippery slope"?
Does someone that uses a gun specifically for hunting need to be qualified for close combat?
No, but they should be trained and qualified to own and use hunting firearms. And if that's all they are trained and qualified to own and use, they should not be owning and using police or combat firearms.
 

HisServant

New member
Like determining who is qualified to operate motor vehicles and who is not is a "meaningless slippery slope"?
No, but they should be trained and qualified to own and use hunting firearms. And if that's all they are trained and qualified to own and use, they should not be owning and using police or combat firearms.

1.) It is still legal to operate a motor vehicle on your own private property without a license.. farmers kids do it all the time... the reason why people get licensed is because they operate on public roads.

2.) How can you regulate transporting a firearm from private to private property when it is not used on public property?.... you cannot.

Like I said before, all the arguments I have seen proposed deprive people of their rights for nebulous reasons.

Then you have idiotic laws like New Jersey, where a person was pulled over and asked if she had a fire arm in the car (which she had a permit for in Pennsylvania) and is now facing 3 years in prison for it... I also believe someone was arrested for transporting collector firearms in his car while just passing through New Jersey for a show up in the North East.. most of the guns were so old that the ammo for them is no longer available and therefore are for display purposes only.

Why is this even a thing?

http://www.courierpostonline.com/st.../phila-woman-avoids-jail-gun-charge/16172251/
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
So you think that underfunded and shrinking police departments around the country are going to be willing to take on the task to train individual citizens on how to use their guns like the police do?
Sure. Because they will charge for the classes to cover the costs.

Heck, we are having to regionalize the police in our area because the administrative and contract requirements imposed by the state on local municipalities are getting quite expensive and onerous.

Excuse me while I bust out in audible laughter.
SO having the police run a class that brings money into the department might help with those shortfalls. Maybe you should consider it.


Handgun hunting is primarily done with specialized handguns that have long barrels and are often set up with scopes (optical aiming devices)

I'd like to see you conceal carry that.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
There are plenty of places outside the borough with smaller population densities that are more suitable for fire arm training... heck, there is a state game lands less then half a mile away.

FYI, An indoor shooting range is permissible within our zoning ordinances should a business wish to set one up.
But you are still infringing on the rights of your citizens. Are they allowed to open carry?
 

HisServant

New member
Sure. Because they will charge for the classes to cover the costs.

SO having the police run a class that brings money into the department might help with those shortfalls. Maybe you should consider it.

I'd like to see you sell that to the tax payers.... public employees charging additional for their services?... Not.. Going.. To.. Happen.

Not to mention they would have to hire more police, which are part of a union.. and are very costly. Most municipalities around here are trying desperately to hire retired state cops on a part time basis. So they don't have to deal with the pension and other work restrictions that the state imposes on local police departments.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

PureX

Well-known member
1.) It is still legal to operate a motor vehicle on your own private property without a license.. farmers kids do it all the time... the reason why people get licensed is because they operate on public roads.
Motor vehicles are not firearms, so there will naturally have to be some differences in the regulations. People can't stick a motor vehicle in their pocket and take it into a public school without anyone noticing, for example. So regulating firearms would have to be more inclusive, by their nature.
2.) How can you regulate transporting a firearm from private to private property when it is not used on public property?.... you cannot.
If we properly regulate their ownership and use, transportation won't be a problem.
Like I said before, all the arguments I have seen proposed deprive people of their rights for nebulous reasons.
The reason for the regulation is the public's safety. That sounds "nebulous" to you because you don't care about anyone else's safety, apparently. All you seem to care about is you getting whatever you want however and whenever you want it.
Then you have idiotic laws like New Jersey, where a person was pulled over and asked if she had a fire arm in the car (which she had a permit for in Pennsylvania) and is now facing 3 years in prison for it... I also believe someone was arrested for transporting collector firearms in his car while just passing through New Jersey for a show up in the North East.. most of the guns were so old that the ammo for them is no longer available and therefore are for display purposes only.
We have idiotic laws because we let our politicians behave like idiots. But not all laws are idiotic, and most laws are far better then not having any laws at all. So I don't know what your argument is, here; … that anything short of perfection is worthless?
 

HisServant

New member
But you are still infringing on the rights of your citizens. Are they allowed to open carry?

They have to abide by state laws in that regard. I can see no benefit to imposing additional restrictions on our citizens that would be a burden on our police to try and regulate.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I'd like to see you sell that to the tax payers.... public employees charging additional for their services?... Not.. Going.. To.. Happen.
You are not charging the tax payers, you are charging the people who are taking the class.

Not to mention they would have to hire more police, which are part of a union.. and are very costly. Most municipalities around here are trying desperately to hire retired state cops on a part time basis. So they don't have to deal with the pension and other work restrictions that the state imposes on local police departments.
So you are back to your do nothing position. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As a community leader you should be ashamed.
 

HisServant

New member
Motor vehicles are not firearms, so there will naturally have to be some differences in the regulations. People can't stick a motor vehicle in their pocket and take it into a public school without anyone noticing, for example. So regulating firearms would have to be more inclusive, by their nature.
If we properly regulate their ownership and use, transportation won't be a problem.
The reason for the regulation is the public's safety. That sounds "nebulous" to you because you don't care about anyone else's safety, apparently. All you seem to care about is you getting whatever you want however and whenever you want it.
We have idiotic laws because we let our politicians behave like idiots. But not all laws are idiotic, and most laws are far better then not having any laws at all. So I don't know what your argument is, here; that anything short of perfection is worthless?

If you were really interested in public safety, then you should be in the forefront of locking up all the federal and state politicians... they are the real menace to this country. Way more dangerous than gun violence... and yes, I really believe it. How many soldiers have they sent to death in foreign countries and how many are committing suicide once they come back home?... the suicides dwarf the mass shootings in this country.

And it is you advocating them writing more legislation to handle guns... it will end up like the 2000+ page ACA legislation... seriously.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I wonder why gun-regulation freaks never comment on the fact that guns save lives. :idunno:
Because they are offset by stories like the one in Texas, by the toddler shooting its mother in Walmart, the bully who used a shotgun on an eight year old neighbor kid.

Guns save lives only rarely when compared to the number of gun accidents. That is why people need to be required to learn to control their guns.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
They have to abide by state laws in that regard. I can see no benefit to imposing additional restrictions on our citizens that would be a burden on our police to try and regulate.
You have already established a president that says you are willing to infringe their second amendment right by making it illegal to actually fire their gun.
 
Top