Re: What does the club

76
Inquisitor wrote:
whitey wrote:
Inquisitor wrote: not the mission of the national club to develop policy.
This irks me and I'll respectfully disagree with this decision.
Different kind of 501c. But the locals can ;)
Because states have laws that differ from Federal laws, I think having the local chapters develop local policies is a good way to go.

The wording is good in the statement. I'd like to see us field a nice cadre of instructors for all phases of gun ownership and use.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: What does the club "think"...

77
I, too, am concerned about #4. This isn't like driving, which is legally a privilege. Rather, the RKBA is just that, a right. There is no legal requirement for licensure, or even competency testing, to own and operate a printing press, or its modern Internet equivalent, a Web site. The Framers understood that such limitations (competency tests and such) would present an effective way for government officials to stifle the rights guaranteed under the 1A. That's why "literacy tests" were made illegal for voting ("gotta demonstrate competency there, boy!"). Likewise with with the right described by the 2A.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: What does the club "think"...

78
As a trainer, I'm biased. Just wanted to state that upfront.

It is my belief that training, even just basic, is an important thing for any gun owner. Regardless of the reason for ownership. I also acknowledge the likelihood of harm when a firearm is in the hands of a person ignorant to the safe operation of it. An analogy could be made for free speech, but you can't accidentally kill yourself by saying "fuck you". You can pick a fight and get killed for saying it, but the words can't hurt you. Poor actions with a firearm can hurt you, or someone you love...instantly, with no time to say "I'm sorry". The 2nd is a unique Right in that regard.

I don't know the way around setting up a financial barrier, but I'm sure some organization could pull off very low cost, or even free, basic training. Why not? I volunteer my time all the time for this that or the other. Material cost is low and most instructors already have piles of it laying around anyway. I'm not advocating for training expiration dates or high end training, just that there is basic safety knowledge imparted and documented.

I know it's a hot topic, and not just on this board. But to me anyway, this falls squarely under the header of "for the common good".

Re: What does the club "think"...

79
The way around it is to have a basic firearms course taught in High School at the same point as Driver's Ed. No cost to the student, this could be covered with Safe Streets money from the Fed.
Last edited by ErikO on Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: What does the club "think"...

81
Cannibal wrote:
ErikO wrote:The way around it is to have a basic firearms course taught in High School at the same point as Driver's Ed. No cost to the student, NSSF can foot the bill as they do with First Shots.
I'm certainly down with that!
I've been thinking about this for a bit, changed my post to use Safe Streets money as opposed to having the NSSF footing the whole bill.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: What does the club "think"...

82
What I don't like about #4 is the conflation of safety and proficiency. Safety can be defined as the "4 rules" and adding in how to clear a gun, for example (ahem, Leslie Combs?). Proficiency, though, is pretty arbitrary. Is it Texas CHL proficient? Or USPSA proficient? It would be easy to make proficiency rules so burdensome that unless you had the time and money to train frequently, you couldn't meet them. But safety could be taught in schools and promulgated via PSAs like the no smoking and seatbelt campaigns. And those would benefit everyone, even people who don't want a concealed carry license.

Re: What does the club "think"...

83
ScorpionHunter wrote:What I don't like about #4 is the conflation of safety and proficiency. Safety can be defined as the "4 rules" and adding in how to clear a gun, for example (ahem, Leslie Combs?). Proficiency, though, is pretty arbitrary. Is it Texas CHL proficient? Or USPSA proficient? It would be easy to make proficiency rules so burdensome that unless you had the time and money to train frequently, you couldn't meet them. But safety could be taught in schools and promulgated via PSAs like the no smoking and seatbelt campaigns. And those would benefit everyone, even people who don't want a concealed carry license.
It's up to someone else to write an actual rule. We would be in favor of an appropriately implemented rule. That's it.

We're not advocating it. FS said something similar several pages back.

I believe CCW is different from ownership and, frankly, open carry. The reality is we have CCW laws, they are capricious and arbitrary and different everywhere. And that's unlikely to change.

Nationalizing that would require some thought. Perhaps with the ruling that says its a right, those last two can be merged eventually.

Re: What does the club

85
Inquisitor wrote:It's up to someone else to write an actual rule. We would be in favor of an appropriately implemented rule. That's it.
We're not advocating it. FS said something similar several pages back.
Agreed.
I believe CCW is different from ownership and, frankly, open carry.
I've been thinking about that a lot, and I'm not sure I see a distinction. That discussion probably doesn't belong in this thread, though.

Re: What does the club "think"...

86
ScorpionHunter wrote:
Inquisitor wrote:It's up to someone else to write an actual rule. We would be in favor of an appropriately implemented rule. That's it.
We're not advocating it. FS said something similar several pages back.
Agreed.
I believe CCW is different from ownership and, frankly, open carry.
I've been thinking about that a lot, and I'm not sure I see a distinction. That discussion probably doesn't belong in this thread, though.
As good a place as any. But feel free to start a new thread :)

Re: What does the club "think"...

88
Overton wrote:How does the group feel about adding something about "education" in the first principle?
That can be found on our 'Mission Statement', located on our home page:
The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.
More directly, the 'club' is currently in the process of drafting, or has completed, comprehensive education programs which are acceptable alternatives to the NRA certification programs, of which many states are currently limited. As of now, our program has been accepted in several states.
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: What does the club "think"...

89
rolandson wrote:
Overton wrote:How does the group feel about adding something about "education" in the first principle?
That can be found on our 'Mission Statement', located on our home page:
The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.
More directly, the 'club' is currently in the process of drafting, or has completed, comprehensive education programs which are acceptable alternatives to the NRA certification programs, of which many states are currently limited. As of now, our program has been accepted in several states.
I get that part about gun education, but the first principle talks about poverty, mental health, etc... I thought that maybe support of "general education" goes along with those root-cause issues.

Re: What does the club "think"...

90
Overton wrote:
rolandson wrote:
Overton wrote:How does the group feel about adding something about "education" in the first principle?
That can be found on our 'Mission Statement', located on our home page:
The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.
More directly, the 'club' is currently in the process of drafting, or has completed, comprehensive education programs which are acceptable alternatives to the NRA certification programs, of which many states are currently limited. As of now, our program has been accepted in several states.
I get that part about gun education, but the first principle talks about poverty, mental health, etc... I thought that maybe support of "general education" goes along with those root-cause issues.
That makes a certain amount of sense, something like "in keeping with our mission" yada yada.

Lots of good stuff here, some concrete suggestions. But mostly, its spawned discussion, which is good :)

Again, these are not policy edicts, just a collection that the herded cats can almost agree on. This level of (dis)agreement is why we removed official stuff from the website. We're here to educate. The chapters can do the politicking :)

Re: What does the club "think"...

91
I'm really not opposed to any of the talking points. What I'm concerned with is in one breath saying we would be in favor of X, while at the same time turning a "whatever" mindset to what would actually be in X.

To say we would support X without really caring what X was....that's kinda scary.

For all we know the government could legislate regulatory red tape so strict and so cumbersome as to make the process near impossible to go through with.

Part of being "pro" anything is to see a process through to the end--not just saying "we want a new car" and not really caring what kind, then having to accept that it will be pink with gold tint on the windows. Not that there is anything wrong with pink or gold, just saying.
"Well there's always been groups of people who never could see eye to eye. But I always thought if they had a chance to sit down and talk face to face they might realize they got a lot in common."
- Chris LeDoux

Re: What does the club "think"...

93
Inquisitor wrote:
Again, these are not policy edicts, just a collection that the herded cats can almost agree on. This level of (dis)agreement is why we removed official stuff from the website. We're here to educate. The chapters can do the politicking
:beer2:
"Well there's always been groups of people who never could see eye to eye. But I always thought if they had a chance to sit down and talk face to face they might realize they got a lot in common."
- Chris LeDoux

Re: What does the club "think"...

96
ObamaLover4Life wrote:I think all guns should be registered, that way, the government knows who has them, and if a crime is committed, they can track the culprit down. I also think that the waiting period should be a federally mandated 30 days, plus you should have to pass a safety test each time.

There is no hunting use for anything with more than 10 rounds, so people shouldn't be able to buy assault clips, and also, they should close the gun show loophole. There are far too many felons who buy their guns illegally on the internet, or at gun shows. If you want a gun, do what I did, and register it, get the background checks, and obey the laws. That is the only safe way to own guns
No jurisdiction that requires registration has ever used that information to secure a criminal conviction for a violent crime. Registries have one and only one purpose: to allow the government to know who has what so that when possession becomes restricted, they know right where to go to get them. Also, you've been watching far too much TV if you actually believe that collecting fired casings can actually be used to trace a gun. Making a match, even when you are only comparing two specific known samples, and when no one has made any attempt to alter the markings the gun makes (which is extremely easy), is hit and miss at best. Being able to find a match from an entire collection in some government archive is simply science fiction.

What is the point of a waiting period, especially on anything past the first purchase? If I already own a gun and am so mad at someone that I would want to shoot them, why would I go buy another gun to do it? What if someone needs a gun for self-defense now, not in 30 days? Like a woman who is dealing with a stalker (who are often not taken seriously by the authorities), or a small business owner who is at serious risk of being robbed? What do they do while they wait this ridiculous 30 days?

Last time I checked, most people don't own guns for hunting. And what the heck is an "assault clip"? If a police officer, with body armor, a radio, backup, air support, etc. needs a 15-round magazine, or a patrol rifle with a 30-round magazine, to defend himself against a criminal who isn't specifically targeting him, how come we, lacking all that extra protection and support, don't need anything more than 10 rounds to defend ourselves against the exact same criminal who actually is targeting us (which is how he becomes a criminal?

As well as watching (and apparently believing) far too much TV, you apparently also listen far too much to Bloomberg. According to the annual statistics on crime guns compiled by the US DOJ, guns purchased at gun shows make up only 0.6-0.8% (yes, less than 1%) of crime guns every year since they've been tracking that statistic. The single most common source of crime guns is sales through federally licensed dealers at brick-and-mortar gun shops. The gun-show loophole is a myth. The primary way criminals get guns (even more often than stealing/ buying stolen guns) is to simply have a friend or family member buy the gun for them through an FFL. All that buyer then has to do is claim the gun was stolen and suddenly background checks, registration, safety tests, and all that other BS ceases to do any good. And unless the criminal rolls on his family, it's not even a prosecutable crime. So we already have ample data showing that background checks don't work.

Given that no jurisdiction with all these silly laws is any safer, on average, than those that don't, the statement that "this is the only safe way to own guns" is contradicted by all real-world evidence.
Last edited by Evo1 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 3 guests