Politicians should carry guns. Citizens should not?

[davjohns 1]

I know these ideas are rising from different quarters of the government...but really?

I am reminded that Senator Feinstein of California is a vehement opponent of my right to carry firearms, but she has a California concealed carry permit and gun to protect herself.

I wish I had been born part of the aristocracy so my safety was important to the government.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rehmwa 2]

1 - the stated function of government is to ensure everybody's rights are fully protected and equal

2 - in practice - the results are some people get more rights at the expense of the rest of the people

there's a subtle disconnect in there, methinks

so are you surprised?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I know these ideas are rising from different quarters of the government...but really?

I am reminded that Senator Feinstein of California is a vehement opponent of my right to carry firearms, but she has a California concealed carry permit and gun to protect herself.

I wish I had been born part of the aristocracy so my safety was important to the government.

One politician gets murdered and suddenly many of them feel the need to be armed for self defense.

Meanwhile, 16,000 regular citizens are murdered every year, and many politicians feel that citizens should NOT be armed for self defense.

Go figure.

[david3 0]

Quote

1 - the stated function of government is to ensure everybody's rights are fully protected and equal

2 - in practice - the results are some people get more rights at the expense of the rest of the people

there's a subtle disconnect in there, methinks

so are you surprised?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell

[billvon 3,120]

How 'bout this as an idea -

Come up with a "public carry - hazardous area" rating. Involves situational training, testing on legal and technical knowledge and a thorough background check. Not easy to get and has to be renewed once a year. Politicians can get it, the public can get it. Once obtained it allows the carrier to carry a weapon into places currently prohibited, like airports, political events and schools.

[peettor 0]

Quote

How 'bout this as an idea -

Come up with a "public carry - hazardous area" rating. Involves situational training, testing on legal and technical knowledge and a thorough background check. Not easy to get and has to be renewed once a year. Politicians can get it, the public can get it. Once obtained it allows the carrier to carry a weapon into places currently prohibited, like airports, political events and schools.

How about if we not infringe on the right to carry weapons as the Founding Fathers intended?

Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings,
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

How 'bout this as an idea -

Come up with a "public carry - hazardous area" rating. Involves situational training, testing on legal and technical knowledge and a thorough background check. Not easy to get and has to be renewed once a year. Politicians can get it, the public can get it. Once obtained it allows the carrier to carry a weapon into places currently prohibited, like airports, political events and schools.

It's not a bad idea.

I did NOT grow up in the US's gun culture some obviously I am coming at this from a different angle, but last year I took a "firearms handling and safety course" up here in Canada and it was excellent. They had me handling all different types of firearms teaching me how they all worked and teaching me how to prove that they were all safe to handle. Then at the end of the course they gave me a theoretical written exam (a mark of 80% was needed to pass the written exam) followed by a hands on practical examine where the instructor asked you to prove to them that you knew how to safely handle the different types of firearms.

I am all for mandatory training and examines to prove you know the material. But as I said I did not grow up in the US gun culture so I am coming at this from a different angle. I do know that many of the "anti" gun people up here in Canada have little to no exposure to firearms and I cringe every time they enter into the political debate concerning firearms since they often do not know the actual firearms laws and regulations. We saw this just this last fall when our Bill C-391 (the bill to end the Long Gun Registry) was defeated by our opposition politicians who allowed the media to spew nothing but lies about the actual firearms laws to the uneducated public. If the public actually knew the existing laws and regulations then they would have understood that nobody was trying to take away the mandatory training, mandatory examination, mandatory background checks, mandatory storage and transportation regulations. All that they were trying to do was end the useless registration of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently classified as "non-restricted" firearms. But the general public believes everything the media wants them to believe.

So the opposition politicians won this battle and people in Canada who are dumb enough to register their firearms are now second class citizens thanks to the Liberals Bill C-68 which allows the police to enter the homes of registered firearms owners anytime that they want without a search warrant all to ensure that the firearms that are said to be owned by the registered person are in compliance with the laws. Oh and by the way the Bill C-68 is so fucked up (thank you Liberals), there is nothing stating in it that the firearm must be stored in one specific residence. So the police can raid any location they want without a search warrant that a known registered firearms user could frequent. How fucked up is that?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How 'bout this as an idea -

Come up with a "public carry - hazardous area" rating. Involves situational training, testing on legal and technical knowledge and a thorough background check. Not easy to get and has to be renewed once a year. Politicians can get it, the public can get it. Once obtained it allows the carrier to carry a weapon into places currently prohibited, like airports, political events and schools.

Let's have a 'informed voter' rating. Involved study of the issues, testing on legal knowledge campaign issues and a thorough background check. Has to be renewed before every election. Once obtained, it allows the carrier to vote.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

It's an interesting idea, Bill. If done, however, the training for politicians and the public must be the same and the standards must be the same.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>If done, however, the training for politicians and the public must be the
>same and the standards must be the same.

Agreed. A standardized test could help with that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's an interesting idea, Bill. If done, however, the training for politicians and the public must be the same and the standards must be the same.

Concealed carry licenses *should* be like that now - "full faith and credit" and all that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How 'bout this as an idea -

Come up with a "public carry - hazardous area" rating. Involves situational training, testing on legal and technical knowledge and a thorough background check. Not easy to get and has to be renewed once a year. Politicians can get it, the public can get it. Once obtained it allows the carrier to carry a weapon into places currently prohibited, like airports, political events and schools.

So one right should be harder/tougher to exersise than another

I think we should have the same requirements to able to vote

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Rick 67]

Quote

Quote

It's an interesting idea, Bill. If done, however, the training for politicians and the public must be the same and the standards must be the same.

Concealed carry licenses *should* be like that now - "full faith and credit" and all that.

I agree

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[billvon 3,120]

>So one right should be harder/tougher to exersise than another

Yes; there are restrictions on all rights, put there to protect other people. You still can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and you still can't practice human sacrifice even if your religion demands it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you still can't practice human sacrifice even if your religion demands it.

What if I called it "art" instead of religion?
How about then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What if I called it "art" instead of religion?
How about then?

There is an "artist" in Toronto who uses a gun as his brush and a target as his canvass. Unfortunately despite his talents (he is good), there are still people who view him as some potential homicidal maniac who should have his tools seized. Art only works when you approve of the art. The moment someone disapproves of your art, they demand that you be censored.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

maniac who should have his tools seized

you say that like it's a bad thing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>What if I called it "art" instead of religion?
>How about then?

Nope.

Now, call it a "limited police action" and you'd have something.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

you still can't practice human sacrifice even if your religion demands it.

What if I called it "art" instead of religion?
How about then?

they'd still arrest you for it, but you'd have gotten a federal grant to pay your bills while you were working on it.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Id like you to answer this:

"Let's have a 'informed voter' rating. Involved study of the issues, testing on legal knowledge campaign issues and a thorough background check. Has to be renewed before every election. Once obtained, it allows the carrier to vote. "

Since voting can do more than a gun... Why not require voter testing before being allowed to vote?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Id like you to answer this:

"Let's have a 'informed voter' rating. Involved study of the issues, testing on legal knowledge campaign issues and a thorough background check. Has to be renewed before every election. Once obtained, it allows the carrier to vote. "

Since voting can do more than a gun... Why not require voter testing before being allowed to vote?

the generic answer is going to be that you're disenfranchising someone. Then when you explain that the test is free and can be administered orally in english and spanish, you're going to be called a big-government thug because you want to increase the size of the government and also be called fiscally irresponsible for not proposing a tax-hike to pay for said proposed program.

You'll eventually be called a nazi, someone will invoke godwin's law, and thread drift will eventually drift the topic of the thread from gun control to voter disenfranchisement. (oh wait...)

--
Rob

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Id like you to answer this:

"Let's have a 'informed voter' rating. Involved study of the issues, testing on legal knowledge campaign issues and a thorough background check. Has to be renewed before every election. Once obtained, it allows the carrier to vote. "

Since voting can do more than a gun... Why not require voter testing before being allowed to vote?

I think you LONG just a bit too much for the old days in the south when segregation and the Jim Crow laws held sway.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I think you LONG just a bit too much for the old days in the south when segregation and the Jim Crow laws held sway.

Got it... you can't answer with intelligent discourse, so you insult.

I thought calling someone a racist was a PA??? Mods?

And I am FOR everyone that is legal to own a weapon... Unlike you. The racists in the South disarmed blacks. You seem to share more with the "good ol boys" than I do. I want blacks to be allowed to be armed.

It is hard to be lynched when you can fight back.

[billvon 3,120]

Both of you cut it out.