People shoot people not guns?

[N80]

Look up the selective service website. It states that all aliens have to register with it.

You are 100% correct. And I now take back everything I said about Selective Service being the primary distinction. But read carefully, it does not even require that you be a 'documented' alien. In other words, selective service now 'requires' illegal aliens who don't even have social security numbers to register for selective service. Now how much sense does that make?!? Total ignorance, and at this point it just trivializes even further what it actually means to me to be a US citizen.

I look at it this way... if you are eligible to die for this country in the military, you should be eligible to get a carry permit, buy yourself a beer and vote.

You know, that sure sounds right. At first. At least until you read the fine print. Just think about it. What this means is that if a Syrian al Qaeda operative walks into Mexico, which he can on any given day without any trouble, he can then walk into US with only a tiny bit more trouble. According to the US Selective Service, he is now required to register with them. (What a joke, right?) But, if that makes him "eligible to die for this country" (your words), then by your logic he should be able to vote(!), keep and bear arms and legally carry a concealed weapon.

I don't think so.

So like I said, given the ignorance of the Selective Service policy, being eligible to die for this country has lost all meaning. Sad.

I'll go back to my original point, if anyone who just happens to be standing on US soil is granted all the rights and privileges of citizenship, then US citizenship is not worth a ****. And one of the most basic and most important rights granted to US citizens is the right to keep and bear arms. If you extend that to the 'global village', you've weakened, and even neutralized one of our greatest strengths.

 

[AlanB]

George, I think you are associated (in) the military, please correct me if I am wrong. I think you are taking one side of a bad thing that Moss and I see and using it on the other side.

I would be mighty suprised if an "illegeal" alien registered for the selective service act.

Speaking for myself, and I think it will be echoed by Moss, the problem that I have is the double standards that many of our soldiers face. Let me give you an example............

A very close freind of mine, his daughter got married shortly ago, and the Groom was not legally allowed to drink as he is underage.

Of course he is back from his third (yes, I said THIRD) combat tour, and is gearing up to go on his fourth...

The point being, that somehow, this combat vet with three combat stints under his belt, would not be allowed to drink, nor have a CC permit.

Things that kind of make you go, huh....................

 

[MossRoad]

You are 100% correct. And I now take back everything I said about Selective Service being the primary distinction. But read carefully, it does not even require that you be a 'documented' alien. In other words, selective service now 'requires' illegal aliens who don't even have social security numbers to register for selective service. Now how much sense does that make?!? Total ignorance, and at this point it just trivializes even further what it actually means to me to be a US citizen.



You know, that sure sounds right. At first. At least until you read the fine print. Just think about it. What this means is that if a Syrian al Qaeda operative walks into Mexico, which he can on any given day without any trouble, he can then walk into US with only a tiny bit more trouble. According to the US Selective Service, he is now required to register with them. (What a joke, right?) But, if that makes him "eligible to die for this country" (your words), then by your logic he should be able to vote(!), keep and bear arms and legally carry a concealed weapon.

I don't think so.

So like I said, given the ignorance of the Selective Service policy, being eligible to die for this country has lost all meaning. Sad.

I'll go back to my original point, if anyone who just happens to be standing on US soil is granted all the rights and privileges of citizenship, then US citizenship is not worth a ****. And one of the most basic and most important rights granted to US citizens is the right to keep and bear arms. If you extend that to the 'global village', you've weakened, and even neutralized one of our greatest strengths.

You are mistaken and your argument is sarcastic. Read this from the selective service website and pay special attention to the * at the bottom.
It clearly states aliens cannot volunteer for the U.S. military unless they have permanent resident alien status. Anyone with false documentation could probably get in. But that is the point... their documentation is false. They are a criminal. The government doesn't knowingly accept criminal illegals for military duty and no where in the Selective Service website does it say that criminal illegal aliens must register with Selective Service. Yeesh!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ALIENS AND DUAL NATIONALS[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Printer Friendly Version[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System.* Most are also liable for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces if there is a draft. They would also be eligible for any deferments, postponements, and exemptions available to all other registrants.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, some aliens and dual nationals would be exempt from induction into the military if there is a draft, depending on their country of origin and other factors. Some of these exemptions are shown below:[/FONT]

• An alien who has lived in the U.S. for less than one year is exempt from induction.
• A dual national whose other country of nationality has an agreement with the U.S. which specifically provides for an exemption is exempt from induction.
• [Some countries have agreements with the U.S. which exempt an alien national who is a citizen of both that country and the U.S. from military service in the U.S. Armed Forces.] An alien who requests and is exempt under an agreement or bilateral treaty can never become a U.S. citizen, and may have trouble reentering the U.S. if he leaves.
• An alien who served at least a year in the military of a country with which the U.S. is involved in mutual defense activities will be exempt from military service if he is a national of a country that grants reciprocal privileges to citizens of the U.S.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During a draft, any claims for exemptions based on any of the above categories would be granted or denied by a man's Local Board.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Military examiners make the final decision about who will be accepted into the military. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Note: Currently, aliens cannot volunteer for the U.S. military unless they have permanent resident alien status. [/FONT]

 

[MossRoad]

George, I think you are associated (in) the military, please correct me if I am wrong. I think you are taking one side of a bad thing that Moss and I see and using it on the other side.

I would be mighty suprised if an "illegeal" alien registered for the selective service act.

Speaking for myself, and I think it will be echoed by Moss, the problem that I have is the double standards that many of our soldiers face. Let me give you an example............

A very close freind of mine, his daughter got married shortly ago, and the Groom was not legally allowed to drink as he is underage.

Of course he is back from his third (yes, I said THIRD) combat tour, and is gearing up to go on his fourth...

The point being, that somehow, this combat vet with three combat stints under his belt, would not be allowed to drink, nor have a CC permit.

Things that kind of make you go, huh....................

That was always my beef with Selective Service, voting and drinking. I was old enough to vote, old enough to lay down my life for my country if asked to, yet I was not old enough to buy a beer for three more years. They either need to raise the age of military service or lower the drinking age. I see miltary service as having much more serious consequences than drinking a beer.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

So, which one did you recommend, Bob?

He has the opportunity to choose from 2 genuine Colt's. One in 9mm the other in 223. Both BNIB, unfired. Both at the original law enforcement cost. He told me he was going to use it as a tactical rifle, his department approved personal weapons. I suggested he buy the .223 and put it in his safe. The price he quoted me was astonishing low, in fact I'd hand him 50% more than he would pay and I know I could sell it for even more within 48 hours.

His deparment no longer uses 9mm, I saw no reason to have a 9mm based on his intended use. I asked about shot distances, etc. He said 75 to 100 yards, possibly through glass into a building, possibly through a car door. For those reasons alone I suggested the 223. At 100 yards and going through glass, I beleive the 9mm has a better chance of being deflected.

 

[Tom_H]

First, I want to say thank you for all the reasoned and thought out replies I have received. I know that my views are in the minority in this forum (while I am not strongly pro guns, I am also not anti-guns) and I have enjoyed being able to listen to all of your thoughts and not be flamed. I have a couple of more questions, and again, these are not meant to bait anybody. I sincerely am interested in finding out what the range of opinions are here.

I want to ask what members think about training in gun safety. When I was a kid, I had a couple of BB guns by the time I was 6. There was no talk about using them properly; they were just given to me at Christmas, along with BBs, and that was it. I shot every song bird I could, neighbor's mailboxes, whatever. By age 10, I had a .22 semi-automatic and a .20 gu. single shot shotgun with birdshot and buckshot. Again, there was virtually no discussion of how to use one safely. My dad was not an outdoorsman and he just took me to the woods and showed me how to load, aim, and shoot. We would often walk down to the pond and shoot bullfrogs, cottonmouths, and other water snakes. No thought was really given to the fact that there was a road on the other side of the pond and that there were houses on the other side of the knoll beyond the pond. Thought wasn't given to ricocheting bullets.

When I was about 13 or so, I read a long article in Field and Stream or a similar magazine, an article about gun safety. It included things like:
1. Don't load magazine until ready to enter woods.
2. Keep safety on until ready to shoot.
3. Put safety back on as soon as shot taken.
4. Who takes the lead in a group of hunters.
5. Making sure that the direction you are shooting has no houses, cars, etc. within the range and direction you are shooting.
6. What limits are there on the range of turn the lead shooter can make when taking aim at a deer before firing.
7. How to make certain that that motion in the brush is your quarry, not another hunter.
8. Unload magazine and clear chamber prior to exiting woods and entering vehicle.
9. How to properly clean and maintain weapon.
10. How to properly store weapons and ammo at home so as to prevent children, etc. from having access.

This article really made me realize how stupid I had been and how my father should have been more responsible in educating me.

Soon thereafter, I got involved in Boy Scouts. We traveled deep into river swamps of south GA, where we camped and sometimes canoe camped for a week at a time. Scouting is where I began to have a deep appreciation for wilderness, and we didn't take any weapons. In college and grad school, I became a wilderness guide, eventually leading long expeditions backpacking, technical climbing, and snow camping while traveling on snowshoes or backwoods nordic skiis, as well as leading canoe trips involving camping and running class III whitewater in the Appalachians, Rockies, Sierra, Caascades, and other places. I learned a lot of survival skills and realized that I did not need weapons with me. I encountered bears, alligators, wild boars, bobcats, walked through a bed of 14 rattlesnakes (very gingerly). Once in Uncompaghre CO and again in the Pecos of NM, I sliped my backpack off and walked with a herd of elk for several miles without disturbing them. I made a decision for myself, that guns were no longer part of what I wanted in my own outdoors experience. I do not, however, have the opinion that others need to do the same just because I did. I have a pack of coyotes that live in our area and they occasionally come on our property. This particular pack is docile and they coexist with all the humans in our area. When I think of Eddie W., and those boars, I have no issue with him. Those boars don't belong in that habitat. They destroy the environment and they are a danger to everybody and everything. What he and Stef. do seems a judicious use of weapons.

So back to the question about safety. I'm sure some of you with law enforcement and military training had a lot of instruction of weapons safety, protocols, and rules of engagement. As a kid, I got none of that, and I'd have to describe myself as a menace for those years. My next door neighbor was a hunter. On Sept 25, 2004, he bought his youngest son a new rifle for his 15th birthday and took him hunting near Yosemite. THere was no instruction on safety and protocol at all. When they returned to the pickup, the father was standing in front of the open driver's door while the boy hoisted the rifle into the gun rack. The rifle discharged point blank into the father's chest and killed him. That young boy will have to live with that for the rest of his life. The sad thing is, the father could easily have prevented it with some basic safety instruction.

SO here are my questions: How do you feel about gun safety instruction courses? How many have had formal training? How many haven't had formal training, but feel you know and practice very strict safety protocol? Is there anyone who feels that safety is a matter that should be left up to the individual and isn't anyone else's business? In that citizens have a right to drive cars, but only after passing written and field tests, would it make sense to require gun owners to take a class and/or pass any test? What about teenaged hunters? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies. Again, I am not trying to stir anything up; I am genuinely interested in your opinions.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

SO here are my questions: How do you feel about gun safety instruction courses? How many have had formal training? How many haven't had formal training, but feel you know and practice very strict safety protocol? Is there anyone who feels that safety is a matter that should be left up to the individual and isn't anyone else's business?

I've had no formal training, but a lot of informal training.
My wife is R.O.T.C. trained with Colt pattern 1911 pistols, Baretta 92 pistols and Colt AR pattern rifles.
My daughter, now 12, will be informally trained on our property this summer.

I believe that I follow safe gun handling practices, have read all sorts of safety guidelines, follow those guidelines, etc. I've probably put close to 50,000 rounds of shotgun shells through my guns (most on the Sporting Clays, Trap and Skeet ranges) and maybe more 45ACP rounds through my pistols. I own other calibers as well, but don't use any as extensively as those two.

I feel that the government does not have the legal right to mandate safety since both my state and the US constitutions guarantee me the right to own weapons, and simultaneously cannot protect me from myself and my own stupid actions. I simply try not to be stupid.

 

[AlanB]

I have had some formal training along the way. but the real training came when Mr. Harris (freind of my dad's) was visiting and I was about 10, he found it amazing that I was 10 and did not have a rifle. My dad had little interest, but when Mr. Harris said "can he have one" dad said no problem. Mr. Harris went out and then bought me an Ithaca single shot boys model 22 and bullets. Then he took me out to the claypits and we started shooting, and we went through muzzle discipline, and we walked a long way, and he said something along the lines of, and this is how far a bullet can travel, make sure you have a backstop or clear field of fire...

I have never asked my dad, but I would expect that it would have been a requirement that I recieve training, but then again, I don't think Mr. Harris would have considered giving me a gun without the training that should go with it, and a demonstration of the consequences when you do things wrong.

I was not the primary trainer with my own son, and actually loathe hunting myself, but my son is very enthusiastic about it, sometimes I think a little too enthusiastic. However, he learned with guys that have years of gun handling in both private and professional life, who honestly I would trust their gun handling abilities beyond my own. Even then, we sit down each time and speak of gun safety prior to his going out.

The next step I am setting up, is he will spend a day or two out shooting with an associate of mine that ran the SF sniper school who will show him the finer points of shooting.

Does the government have the "right" or "responsiblity" to force safety on me?

Well, I went and attended the required Hunter safety course with my son so he could go out. Seems to me they already do. (at least in TN and KY) is it needed, in my opinion, yes, it is a reasonable requirement to insure a "baseline" of knowledge for folks wandering around in the woods with guns.
Is it effective? I don't know, but even though I consider myself knowledgable, I found the class interesting and informative and learned some things.

 

[RoyJackson]

He has the opportunity to choose from 2 genuine Colt's. One in 9mm the other in 223. Both BNIB, unfired. Both at the original law enforcement cost.

Yeah, his cost was about 50%-60% of what a Colt AR 15 would cost a civilian, which is one reason I won't buy Colt. The company is owned (was, at least) by an extremely anti-2nd Amendment person.
Also, Colts at one time were real jam-o-matics. If I recall, most of the problems were magazine related (this was 10 years ago).

"The price he quoted me was astonishing low, in fact I'd hand him 50% more than he would pay and I know I could sell it for even more within 48 hours."

Make sure you know the laws and regs about doing this. I believe his boss would have to approve the purchase (your buddy can tell you) to get the LE discount.

 

[RonMar]

SO here are my questions: How do you feel about gun safety instruction courses? How many have had formal training? How many haven't had formal training, but feel you know and practice very strict safety protocol? Is there anyone who feels that safety is a matter that should be left up to the individual and isn't anyone else's business? In that citizens have a right to drive cars, but only after passing written and field tests, would it make sense to require gun owners to take a class and/or pass any test? What about teenaged hunters? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies. Again, I am not trying to stir anything up; I am genuinely interested in your opinions.

I think Gun safety courses are good to have, I myself have had a lot of formal training, but the safety portions of that didn't teach me anything new to that which my father and older brothers did when I was a boy. I myself practice(and enforce upon my children) a strict firearms safety protocol. I believe your father was remiss in providing any projectile launching device to you as a child without proper training and guidelines for it's use.

Safety will always be the responsibility of the person using the firearm. Unfortunately, actually carrying out the safe practice does not always happen. As firearms were designed to launch a projectile at a target at a distance, the person with the poor discipline and unsafe practice is usually not the one to suffer from those acts. Most states require a proficiency test/demonstration to receive a conceiled carry permit nowdays. Most states also require that you take and pass a hunter safety course before you can purchase a hunting liscence. While I don't necessarilly agree with being forced to do it, I think it is good to have the training. Look at the way people drive. Now just imagine all those people carrying guns... Incidences of careless use are low, but so is the ammount of carry. I think those that do typically carry(at least for lawfull defence purposes) are also more the type who have enough self reliance and self discipline to do it safely. You occasionally hear of "Hunting accidents". When you put a lot of people who typically only shoot during those 2 weeks of the year, into an area with randomly appearing game and unpredictable terrain and obstructions, those accidents are the natural result without the mandate of the barest minimum of safety training. I am really surprised that hunters safety courses are not a recurring requirement every 5 or 10 years, but I havn't heard of any of those.

You don't have the RIGHT to drive a car. The constitution says I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. My state can revoke this if I am convicted of a major crime. There is nothing in the constution about driving a car. You can earn/purchase the PRIVELAGE to drive an automobile by passing the appropriate tests and getting a drivers liscence, purchasing the reqired vehicle, liscence and insurance. Failure to follow the rules and these privelages can be revoked. Cars kill far more than guns will or do. It is so common place that we don't really ever think about it. In the ammount of time I have taken to write this, and you to read it, there have been many accidents with cars and I am sure at least 1 person or more has died. In my opinion, based on a lot of road miles and encounters with some pretty bad drivers, I think that a recurring practical driving test should be mandatory every few years.