Guns

[FoolKiller]

Why has this guys teaching permit not been revoked ?

Certified instructors are required to comply with all applicable state and federal statutes. Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion place that instructor’s certification by the department at risk of suspension or revocation.

But yet we have not heard anything more on it ? Swept under the rug ?
I thought there was supposed to be a trial about this.

Crockett Keller ..... LOSER. The kind of guy I do not want on my side. 👎

If you're that concerned, why not Google it?

Fourth hit in a search for "Crockett Keller."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...ett-keller-ill-train-obama-supporters-muslims

Wouldn't be the first time a business owner made his personal views clear by threatening to deny service in order to bring attention to his business, only to actually serve those people.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I voted strict control. But that's subjective to what you and I think what strict is.

Strict for me is; background checks, phsychological test, weapons registered and an actual shooting test(s) to see if you are capable and can safely handle a firearm. You should be able to use it for your own protection (e.g. in your own house), but not be allowed to carry in public. Mainly because of how far bullets carry and you can't predict where they go, which is why I wouldn't want any shooting in a (heavily) populated area.

So in my opinion; looser then the Netherlands, stricter then the USA. I may sound anti-gun to the Americans now , but I'm pro-responsible-gun ownership.

We firearm owners in America all for 'pro-responsible gun ownership.' But that fact doesn't lie with the government in the form of gun control. It lies with the individual gun owner, which is where it should lie.

 

[HE1RO]

I own several guns, mostly shotguns since i like to bird hunt.

I consider a gun the same as a vehicle. Both can kill someone, both require a person to operate it, and they both require experience/common sense to use safely. I dont support gun control, but i would support a little bleach in the gene pool.... because of crazy people, we cant have nice things.

If you have never fired a gun at a range, or shot clay birds i recommend you do so. Its pretty fun.

 

[Nicksfix]

If that's the law then I support his violation of it. It is immoral to require any private business owner to serve people he may not want to serve. It's his property, both physical and intellectual, and he should be able to choose who has access to it on any grounds he sees fits; any requirement of service is akin to slavery. We all agree that slavery is wrong.

There is no "IF" about it ... it is the law. It's called discrimination / racism.
(THIS)

While it may be immoral, it is a law. There is a bold line between the two of them. Yes, we all (hopefully) agree that slavery is wrong, but so is racism.

As far as Crockett Keller is concerned ... he broke his code of ethics as an instructor. (racism)

If you're that concerned, why not Google it?

Fourth hit in a search for "Crockett Keller."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...ett-keller-ill-train-obama-supporters-muslims

Thanks FK 👍

Crockett Kellers own words, you decide .... racism or not ?

“If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law… If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you, and God bless America.”

 

[HE1RO]

One guy in Texas... And isn't the video kinda old? There are different people all over, he just happened to be to be alive early enough to get his license before being discriminatory was a problem.

 

[Eric.]

An example of what often happens here, is small modifications to make otherwise legal guns illegal. Shotguns are limited to 3 shells (2 in the mag, 1 in the chamber) in Canada. Criminals usually remove the rubber plug and restore the gun to 6 or 8 shells. Another is with "centre fire" rifles (firing pin in the centre of the cartridge), are limited to 5 round mags here. A criminal will use illegal magazines with these.

Is the part regarding shotguns applicable at all times, or only when hunting? I thought a similar law applied in Illinois but a plug is only required in shotguns when hunting with it.

 

[HE1RO]

In Oklahoma, it applies Only if hunting. I would assume it's the same everywhere in the us.

 

[Zenith]

Is the part regarding shotguns applicable at all times, or only when hunting? I thought a similar law applied in Illinois but a plug is only required in shotguns when hunting with it.

On that note...

In California we have a ten round magazine limit on all firearms. I can order a 30 round magazine off the internet. It will arrive at my door in pieces as a "rebuild kit." I can piece a magazine together in one minute and have myself what is considered here to be an "assault" weapon. Alternatively I could drive to Nevada or Arizona and pick up any CA banned item and bring it over the fence.

I can do the same thing with short barrels.

I can do the same thing with magazine releases.

If I planned to kill people, it's safe to say I would ignore the "trade and manufacture" laws this state has. Since I don't plan to kill people or do something illegal, my safety and recreation is compromised for nothing.

 

[Nicksfix]

One guy in Texas... And isn't the video kinda old? There are different people all over, he just happened to be to be alive early enough to get his license before being discriminatory was a problem.

The video is really not that old. Unless you consider 1 year being old. It was released in Oct. of '11, I do believe.

Sure, he is old enough and I'm sure he has had his license for many years, but the fact remains ... he did break the Code of Ethics set forth before him by the NRA about being an instructor. The one about racism. I'll post the link again.

( READ )

 

[HE1RO]

Do we know if he is still even giving classes?

 

[Keef]

...it is a law.

Don't care. It's stupid. I would willingly break that law in protest until I got caught. I'd pay the consequences but I still wouldn't stop protesting it whenever I could.

 

[Nicksfix]

Don't care. It's stupid. I would willingly break that law in protest until I got caught. I'd pay the consequences but I still wouldn't stop protesting it whenever I could.

So by this, are you calling yourself a racist ?

 

[Keef]

So by this, are you calling yourself a racist ?

No, but you're definitely suggesting it politely. You're also suggesting you don't fully understand the concept of property rights.

1. Let's say I own a house. I don't want black people in it. Guess what? It's my house and I can disallow black people in it if I want to. The property is mine.

2. Let's say I own a business. I don't want black people in it. Guess what? It's my business and I can disallow black people in it if I want to. The property is mine.

I'll give you a hint on that first point: I said house, not home, and therefore I cited a place where I don't necessarily live. I could own a house that I've never even seen, but because it's my property - my property - then I make the rules. Anything goes as long as I don't violate anybody else's life, liberty, or property.

I'll already answer your next question because I've been asked it countless times. Isn't the banning of certain people into my property a violation of their liberty? No, it isn't. In order to exercise one's right to property, one must first own the property. Once one owns the property then they have the liberty - the freedom - to do with it as they please. Obviously since others don't own my property then they have to right no control what is done with it.

 

[Nicksfix]

No, but you're definitely suggesting it politely. You're also suggesting you don't fully understand the concept of property rights.

1. Let's say I own a house. I don't want black people in it. Guess what? It's my house and I can disallow black people in it if I want to. The property is mine.

2. Let's say I own a business. I don't want black people in it. Guess what? It's my business and I can disallow black people in it if I want to. The property is mine.

I'll give you a hint on that first point: I said house, not home, and therefore I cited a place where I don't necessarily live. I could own a house that I've never even seen, but because it's my property - my property - then I make the rules. Anything goes as long as I don't violate anybody else's life, liberty, or property.

I'll already answer your next question because I've been asked it countless times. Isn't the banning of certain people into my property a violation of their liberty? No, it isn't. In order to exercise one's right to property, one must first own the property. Once one owns the property then they have the liberty - the freedom - to do with it as they please. Obviously since others don't own my property then they have to right no control what is done with it.

I suggested nothing. It was merely a question going off of what you stated. I fully understand property rights, I am a homeowner, I do know my rights. My sister also is a homeowner as well as a landlord for some duplexes she owns. By law, she cannot discriminate as to whom she rents to. She too knows the law.

This is the part that I think you don't understand. You do realize that there is a major difference between owning a home and setting your standards as to whom may enter it and owning a business and setting standards as to whom may enter it as well ?

Sure, you can own your own home and keep out anyone you don't like. Do what you want to do.

Try telling a black man that he cannot enter your restaurant (a business) based on your fact that he is black ! Let's see where that one gets ya !

LAWSUIT !

Fact : In my home town, a realtor was showing a home. When the family showed up to view it, she made the comment that she would not show the house to them based on their race. 'Nuff said there.

* she lost her job, got sued for slander and the realty company that she represented was also sued *

So go right ahead, break the laws from a business standpoint as you stated, it's your choice, just brace yourself for the repercussions.

 

[hogger129]

I suggested nothing. It was merely a question going off of what you stated. I fully understand property rights, I am a homeowner, I do know my rights. My sister also is a homeowner as well as a landlord for some duplexes she owns. By law, she cannot discriminate as to whom she rents to. She too knows the law.

This is the part that I think you don't understand. You do realize that there is a major difference between owning a home and setting your standards as to whom may enter it and owning a business and setting standards as to whom may enter it as well ?

Sure, you can own your own home and keep out anyone you don't like. Do what you want to do.

Try telling a black man that he cannot enter your restaurant (a business) based on your fact that he is black ! Let's see where that one gets ya !

LAWSUIT !

Fact : In my home town, a realtor was showing a home. When the family showed up to view it, she made the comment that she would not show the house to them based on their race. 'Nuff said there.

* she lost her job, got sued for slander and the realty company that she represented was also sued *

So go right ahead, break the laws from a business standpoint as you stated, it's your choice, just brace yourself for the repercussions.

It's not illegal to refuse service to someone. I used to work in a grocery store. If I felt that somebody purchasing alcohol was underage, I could refuse service to them or let somebody else sell them the alcohol they wanted to buy. Refusing to serve someone is not illegal. Sometimes it can be VERY unethical - like refusing service based on race - but it isn't illegal.

The Fair Housing Act was broken in the case you described - which is illegal. I don't think that's what Keef was referring to though. Now in the case of this guy with his gun business where he's refusing to serve certain people... I don't know why he wouldn't want to make the money, but it's his business and as such he reserves the right to refuse service.

 

[Keef]

This is the part that I think you don't understand. You do realize that there is a major difference between owning a home and setting your standards as to whom may enter it and owning a business and setting standards as to whom may enter it as well ?

No, I don't see a difference between those two things. I see anti-discrimination laws as legislated violations of owners' property rights. This is what you don't seem to understand: I don't give a flying **** if it's the law - it is wrong. Anti-discrimination laws violate owners' right to property, one of the three inalienable and universal rights that our nation was founded upon. Our government was designed with one purpose, to defend the lives, liberty, and property of the people, and by enacting anti-discrimination laws they've done more than do their job - they've done the complete opposite of their job.

This has been covered at immeasurable length in the Human Rights thread. In fact, this entire argument about guns has nothing to do with guns at all, it is in fact a human rights discussion. The questions which need to be asked are as follows: Do humans have natural, logical rights to their own lives, liberty, and property? If so, do they have a right to defend them from those who may infringe them?

 

[Danoff]

Noice

 

[Dennisch]

It's like a Mortal Kombat fatality. But with words.

👍

 

[Nicksfix]

I don't give a flying **** if it's the law - it is wrong.

Just as long as it's clear that you do understand it is a law. Your free to choose which side to take ... for it or against it. It's your choice, go right ahead with it. Who am I to try change your viewpoint ... have at it.

It's not illegal to refuse service to someone

Oh but it is :

Are you familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ?

* H.R. 7152
* Public Law 88-352
* Introduced to the 88th Congress of the United States of America on Thursday July 2nd 1964, passed on Tuesday July 7th 1964
* Signed into effect by our president Lyndon B. Johnson
* Signed by Speaker of the House John W. McCormack
* Signed by Carl Hayden, Pro Tempor of the Senate

An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964”.

It's not illegal to refuse service to someone

In this case you can:

If your business is being disrupted by an unruly person. Then you as an owner have the right to have that person removed from your establishment.


... and to think this all got started by a video of Crockett Keller.



I'm done going back and forth on this particular aspect of the past few posts. Can we please move forward in the right direction of the topic at hand, which is "guns" ?












​

 

[Gt5anticip8r]

Okay, let me start by saying that my views will be slightly skewed compared to most of yours, since I'm South African.

What worries me about plenty of these replies is that gun control advocates seem to be basing their opinions on purely hypothetical situations and grim-sounding statistics. Thankfully, I don't have to do that since I've witnessed, first-hand, the results of citizens being disarmed.

You see, technically guns are not illegal to own in South Africa. Your chances of obtaining the required permits are, however, squat (We're talking about self-defense - hunting and sport rifles etc. are a different story).

Now, to cut a long story short, I'll tell you where gun control gets a nation: nowhere.

Down here, criminals are using high-powered assault rifles which are not, and never have been, legal for citizens to own. Where are they getting them from? Your guess is as good as mine, but they sure as hell aren't "stealing them from licenced gun-owners". And look at the state of things. Not a day goes by when I don't hear a new horror story involving car-jackings or home invasions.

Thing is though, I've also heard plenty of stories about how criminals were successfully fought off with the use of firearms. Bearing in mind what I said above about the difficulty in legally owning a gun, you can understand that unfortunately not many people have the means of fighting off criminals like this.

My point? When criminals know that their victim is unlikely to own a gun, they are decidedly fearless when attacking. When gun ownership is illegal, criminals will find a way to obtain them. Just like how drug addicts will find a way to obtain substances that are as illegal as hell.

 

[Nicksfix]

Now, to cut a long story short, I'll tell you where gun control gets a nation: nowhere.

+1

As if this will ever happen ... (video)

 

[BobK]

Gun control requires a steady hand

(Saw that on a bumper sticker the other day.)

 

[Nicksfix]

Gun control requires a steady hand

Or using both hands.

 

[Zenith]

Here's a new discussion topic: 3D printers.

Recently a man printed his own AR15 lower receiver at home. In the eyes of the law this is the part that is considered the firearm because it has the serial number.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower___yes__it_works_.html

There is also another project called the Wiki Weapon Project that aims to have an open-source 3D part file for free access around the internet.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/23/wiki-weapon-project-aims-to-create-a-gun-anyone-can-3d-print-at-home/

As time progresses and home manufacturing matures, 3D printers should be able to build more and more components to a firearm.

This begs the question, if governments are unable to control firearms as a good, how can they expect to control them as information?

 

[f1reb1rd]

Oh how I wish autos were legal in Iowa.... sigh

 

[Nicksfix]

Let's break down the listed poll and discuss it.

1.) In your opinion, what is strict control ?
2.) In your opinion, what is moderate control ?
3.) In your opinion, what is loose control ?

I'm compiling my thoughts on these. I will post them when I have them sorted out to the best of my opinion.

 

[Joel]

Loose control to me means background checks, largely unrestricted firearm ownership, and available CCW permits. To me it means US gun laws for the most part (although they do vary by state, of course).

Moderate control means Canada's gun control to me. Background checks, mandatory courses, and largely unrestricted ownership of long guns, with tighter controls on handguns, and "dangerous" guns, and no CCW.

Strict control means European gun control to me. Private ownership of guns is largely prohibited, and don't even think about owning handguns. Exceptions only granted to farmers for pest control, and sport shooting clubs (very tightly regulated).

 

[Nicksfix]

These are just random thoughts, nothing is etched into stone here.

Strict :
A) You must be a "legal"citizen of the United States. (2 forms of legal I.D. required)
B) You must be at least 21 years of age to purchase a handgun.
C) You must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a shotgun or rifle.
D) Your mandatory background (local - state - federal) check must come back 100% squeaky clean. (no misdemeanors or felonies at all .... zero - zilch - zip - nada).
E) You must enroll into a firearms training and safety course. (minimum 40 hour course). This would include classroom and range time combined.
F) You must pass a random drug test before you take possession of the said firearm that you may be purchasing.

Moderate:
A) You must be a "legal"citizen of the United States. (2 forms of legal I.D. required).
B) Your mandatory background (local - state - federal) check must come back 100% squeaky clean. (no misdemeanors or felonies at all).
C) At least 18 years of purchase any type of firearm.

Loose:
A) Pass a background check.
B) Minimum 18 years of age.

 

[Dennisch]

You know how many licenses were taken away in all of the Netherlands?
Last time I heard a number, it was 7.

The numbers of revoked licenses in the the Netherlands has gone slightly up this year.

280 so far.

 

[homeforsummer]

Whatever your view on gun control, this made me laugh.

Decreasing the availability of something rarely decreases a market for it and it is not the availability of firearms that is the issue, it is the availability of idiots. Some form of balance between education and legislation is required. The government doesn't ban cars just because they are sometimes used illegally but they do make you wear seat belts. Blaming a gun for someone being shot may be like blaming a fork for making Rosie O'Donnell fat but limiting her access to the cutlery drawer couldn't hurt. It may be suggested that educating her on the dangers of obesity might be as effective as blocking the availability of forks, but that would require far more effort.

Differentiating between those who purchase forks for collections, sports, or home protection and those who like to eat in front of the mirror would be a difficult task so a nationwide ban would probably be the easiest solution. This may of course create a multi-billion dollar underground market for utensils and years of debate over whether chopsticks and straws fall under fork control legislation but at least we could sleep secure in our beds knowing Rosie isn't shoveling cake into her mouth.

From here.