GOP strengthens gun rights platform
The Washington Times reports that the Republicans’ platform just approved this week in Tampa pledges to strengthen their gun rights advocacy by supporting large-capacity magazines, supporting “stand your ground” laws, and allowing citizens with concealed weapons permits carry in every state that allows their own citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Of course, there are detractors;
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said that, by making these changes, Republican leaders have “put themselves farther out of touch with their constituents.”
His group supports bans on large-capacity weapons, which it says are “designed to shoot a lot of people quickly and efficiently.”
Yup, I have lots of large capacity magazines, and I bought them for just that purpose; to shoot a lot of people quickly and efficiently, if I ever need to do that. in fact, almost none of my guns can be used for hunting at all, they’re all for killing people. I don’t intend to kill anyone, but I want that capability if me or my family are faced with the possibility.
David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, told the NRA News that the 2008 GOP platform “was perhaps the most gun-friendly platform that any party had ever adopted,” and “this year’s Republican platform is even stronger in terms of dedicating a major party to the protection of the Second Amendment.”
And it’s about time they got their heads out of the sand in regards to guns and made a bold statement. I want to see what the Democrat party will put in their platform referring to guns. Maybe they’ll have the guts to say what they think. If they don’t, then the Brady campaign will see what the voters are really thinking.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns
Outstanding. I hadn’t found anything to be impressed about in the GOP platform thus far…so it’s good to see this approved.
I love how anti-gun advocates always jump to the reason being to kill people more effectively. Last I checked I wanted to be able to have more rounds for hunting and target shooting.
There is a storm going on in the South and you guys are wanting to get rid of all gun laws
——————————————————
Thought I would beat Gagger Fan to the punch.
Standard capacity magazines and broader Concealed Carry is a start, but what about loosening regulations on suppressors, SBRs, and the like?
Twist,
I had to reread your nick twice before I saw the line at the bottom….because I was sure it was Gagger Man!
#5. Gaggerman pretending to be Gaggerman so that we think it’s not Gaggerman. Gaggerman is not nearly sharp enough to think of that, let alone do it.
Republican leaders have “put themselves farther out of touch with their constituents.”
Hmmmm…let’s see…
1986 CCW counts by state:
Unrestricted-1, Shall-issue-8, May-issue-26, No-issue-16.
2011 CCW counts by state:
Unrestricted-4, Shall-issue-37, May-issue-8, No-issue-1.
And if you look at the map by year, isn’t it amazing how many of those states went from no/may-issue to shall-issue AFTER the so-called “Assault” weapons ban in 1994?
So who exactly is out of touch again, Brady Bunch?
And oh yeah–because a single-shot gun is gonna be SOOOOOOO effective against multiple people in a home invasion or similar situation.
@8 NHSparky
“And oh yeah–because a single-shot gun is gonna be SOOOOOOO effective against multiple people in a home invasion or similar situation.”
——
And ZOMBIES!!! Don’t forget Zombies. !!!!! {;-D
Aren’t they one and the same? I mean, I might be showing a bit of my tinfoil hattery here, but wouldn’t you equate the people shuffling around, subsisting on handouts or the largesse of others a real-life example of brain-eating zombies?
Don’t serve any real purpose other than something to avoid, IMO.
Wouldn’t the real solution to misuse of guns be to make sure that everyone, including children, gets proper training in the handling and use of them, and how to avoid accidents and/or misuse?
Oh, crap! I just woke up and found myself at my desk working on the main character teaching his kids to shoot and handle pulse weapons correctly. Sorry, guys and gals! My apologies.
@4: Yeah! how ’bout that?
Excellent news.
The irony of the situation is that CPL holders are citizens that have a document that prove they are not a criminal nor have any history of mental illness.
I mentioned this to a liberal neighbor the other day. I asked her where her document was proving that fact. After all to get a CPL you have to have a background check.
Then I added my DOD Secret clearence which doubled my authenticy. Therefore I am beyond reproach by her logic. She had a lot of emotional things to say to which I pointed out she had nothing to prove she had never been a criminal. Neither could she prove there was not history of mental illness.
It was a good day.
@7: Hey Sparky, my state went over the 100,000 mark for carry permits this year! Woo hoo!!!!! I celebrated with some errant gunfire at some threatening looking pieces of paper, that seemed to be posturing aggressively with angry looking cirles on them!
Careful, Ex-PH2, the uberment might think you are an insurrectionist and arrest you for a phony crime.
Personally, I got my firearms education from a cross between Marines and Boy Scouts when I was about eight. Most of these little thugs get theirs from gangs and TV at about 12 or more. Last I checked, I haven’t shot up any houses or caused any gun violence.
Oh, and @10, we aren’t bringing up the Democrats… or were you talking about the Occutards?
@11 I’m not sure I understand you – I’m somewhat liberal and don’t want to take away guns, but I strongly advocate that additional training for firearms is a good thing. The problem seems to be that, at least with conservatives I’ve spoken with, requiring such training / instruction (waived if they have experience via military or LE) is considered an affront to what they feel are their 2A rights.
I’m can even understand that notion, even if I don’t fully agree with it, but it seems a half decent compromise. It doesn’t really restrict one’s rights to arms, and it eases the fears of some on the liberal side. Sure, you’ll still get the nutcases on the far left who’ll freak out that ‘exposing’ people to more info at guns suddenly means people are going to be shot en masse, but even those of us somewhat left-leaning tune those guys out.
I guess, ultimately, it comes down to that pesky question of ‘requiring’ some training. That seems to be the sticking point. What are your thoughts on that?
@16 I’ll add even if unsolicited. The state should not require it. WE should. Firearms were once a tool of survival. Abraham Lincoln use dto hunt with a musket at 8 years old. 8 YEARS OLD!
I got scared at a 40 year old with his first .357 in a CPL class I took.
So I answer by asking. Who should know they need training? the 40 year old or the 8 year old?
Even if “required’ would it change? The state requires drivers training but it hasn’t cut down on accidents or anything else. One would think that if you are going to do something dangerous one would seek out training.
(reading Second Amendment)…
…hmmmm…nope, doesn’t say anything about having “proper” training in there.
Maybe that’s because the left will never be satisfied with what defines “proper” training. Kinda like saying, “Sure, you can have guns, but you can’t have any bullets for them.”
Kinda flies against the whole framer’s intent thingy there.
Hey maybe 16 has a point…and we should expand his concept to the First Amendment too. You’re only able to voice your opinion if you’ve become certified by an accredited, government approved university. I mean seriously, we can’t entrust free-speech to just anyone, they might abuse it or hurt someone’s feelings.
@17 That’s fine with me – hell, I’m happy to have the NRA design it. Having had some training myself, and having also seen people wield a gun without any training, I’m just happier raising the bar a tiny bit. If nothing else, impressing upon people proper safety techniques for their own damn sake is useful.
My answer would be if they’re a first-time gun owner, make them get some training – chances are it would differ for the 8 year old and the 40 year old, and that’s fine. Despite my liberal leanings, I’m not in any way, shape or form aiming to set this up as a covert method to prevent people from owning.. just a way to get people to own more responsibly.
As for driver’s education, I don’t think it’s quite the same – people drive every day, but most don’t pull out their weapon every day. Also, we can break weapon purchases broadly down into two categories: self-defense, and sport. We can argue that cars are for sport, too, and in so far as ‘sport’ goes in general, I’m less concerned about training being required. People don’t carry a hunting rifle concealed into a diner. It’s the ones who have good intentions with respect to defense of themselves and those around them but no training in how to actually do that who, I think, would benefit from some form of program.
(Yes, I know the really well-minded folks will put themselves through some sort of training.. but lots of others are well-intentioned but lazy.)
@16: I understand what you’re saying and (I know this will probably get me in trouble with some folks on here) I agree that there should be some training. I had to go through gun safety training in order to be allowed to hunt, back when I was 12. I went through more training in the Army. I had to have additional training for my carry permit (for my job) in Denver back in the mid-80’s. I had to have training to get my carry permit that I now currently have. I see no problem with having training, and/or showing proper gun handling proficiency, before being allowed to carry. Mostly, carry permit training went over the laws and responsibilities and those that needed gun handling and shooting training got it and those of us that didn’t need that much were able to get some practice on the range.
In my opinion, no amount of training will prevent someone from shooting another person if that is their intent, but if more people are armed, it may reduce the amount of innocent bystanders from being shooting victims.
@18 The 2A also speaks about a well-regulated militia – words that are parsed by both sides to mean what they want them to say, but I don’t know of any ‘militia-ready’ sorts who didn’t have some fundamental understanding of how to use their firearm. Back in the day there was an implicit understanding that (male) children, at least, would know how to use firearms.. for hunting, defense, etc.
I don’t think it’s outside the realm of 2A interpretation to state that a basic ‘common-sense’ training be given to people on acquiring their first firearm. Something that, again, would happen from father-to-son a long time ago.
NHSparky, I believe some of the founders would see the necessity of proper training. The only thing I’ve found so far to support that is Federalist No. 29.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
If you look at the two paragraph quote on that page, it discusses how it would be hard to feasibly train the whole nation, but it doesn’t dismiss the logic behind some bit of training. After all, it is my belief that the founding fathers didn’t want a citizenry of farmers with nothing but pitchforks, shovels, and no ability to defend themselves.
I have no formal military training, but I’m a firm practitioner of seeking out and receiving quality training. At the same time, I don’t mean to knock what you’re saying in any way. The country was setup so that we can better ourselves, and the area of firearm ownership/responsibility is paramount. We send our children to school to better use their first amendment, but what do we do to enhance their knowledge of the others?
@19 I tend to think people are less concerned with someone having an untrained opinion than they are with someone having an untrained trigger finger.
There is a very real perception issue with guns, and it seems ensuring people have some form of training would go a long ways towards addressing it and further solidifying the ability for law-abiding types to carry concealed and serve to protect their homes and streets.
OK, I’ll go further on this subject. I’m generalizing, so don’t take anything personally.
Most of the liberal (leftish?) crowd is made up of yuppies and their offspring who are either overprotective or overprotected. My exerpiences with these people is that anything that rattles them even slightly, such as someone arguing on a cell phone or a crabby bus driver on a commuter bus, literally freaks them out. They are afraid of anyone they don’t know talking to them. They’re even afraid of their own children, and having seen some of those kids in the Occupy crowd and in flash mobs burning down London last year, I can understand why. And again, I’m generalizing.
I don’t have a lot of use for that crowd, because they don’t seem to have very much common sense about a lot of things, e.g., walking home alone at 2AM and not keeping a weather eye on your surroundings. They don’t know how to embrace fear and use it to their benefit. Therefore, guns and the use of them are anathema to these people. As an example, they don’t take simple self-defense training, whereas common sense tells you to learn that it’s possible to disarm a street thief, and how to do it.
In the case of the angry guy in NYC last week, someone could have knocked him down and disarmed him, but all the onlookers were staring at him as if he were some kind of weird angry bird. They were all within his shooting range but they didn’t run until the panicky cops started shooting.
I didn’t actually say “require proper training”, I just said “make sure”. Sparky’s right: the left/yuppies who are afraid of guns and everything else could spend years arguing over what constitutes proper training. It was, after all, just an idea on my part….
I have, after all, said several times that I don’t have a gun and I don’t want one. I know that there are other ways to get things done.
Sure, for those of us who still possess the precious commodity formerly known as common sense, continuing training for anything requiring motor skills goes with the program, but for those lacking sense, common or otherwise, there is nothing which will satisfy them and their agenda.
On the other hand, perhaps we should advocate equal trining in all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? You know, because, according to the hate crime crowd, at least part of the time, depending upon unknown factors like perhaps the phase of the moon, words cause irreperable harm to at least some among us. Or their adopted group of the week. Or whatever they feel like at the moment. Obviously, we all need some formal training on how to exercise our free speech. And while they are at it, perhaps one of them can explain to me how burning stuff is speech, but that is for another day.
Yep. We need some mandated training on unreasonable searches, too. Won’t that be fun?
All just to say, I really wish folks would use equal scrutiny to each part of the Constitution. It really is a package deal, in it’s entirety, and applies to all of us all the time.
@21 That’s good to hear – and you’re precisely the kind of person I wouldn’t mind carrying in my neighborhood. I agree nothing will stop someone from shooting another if they’re intent upon it, but you’re right, with more capable, armed people around, the chances of collateral damage is reduced.
The biggest stumbling block towards greater acceptance of concealed-carry seems to be the perception, true or not, that too many people are untrained with the weapons they hold. Addressing that may seem like a backwards way to further gun rights, but that’s how I see it. Clearly, others disagree.
Anon–I don’t disagree with the necessity of training, I disagree with the government telling me how much is adequate.
Am I saying that any yahoo should just be able to strap on a gun and go nuts? Nope, but when you start pushing “mandatory” training, you give those who would take that right away ammo (so to speak) for their agenda.
And the PEOPLE make up the militia, or at least did back in the day. The entire intent was not only to prevent outside tyranny, but internal tyranny from an overreaching government. Tree of liberty, blood of patriots and tyrants, shit like that.
@25 No problem; thanks for sharing your opinion. I understand where your generalization of the left comes from, I’d just argue that what you see is the part of the spectrum which gets the most attention, though it isn’t really representative of the whole. I think there are plenty of ‘liberals’ who are liberal because the (generalized) conservative stance on things like gay rights makes identifying with conservatives almost impossible. Their feelings on things like gun control, however, are pretty wide ranging.
Thankfully, the country is split so closely along these broad categories of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ that even a little movement from one side to the other allows for progress to be made. That’s why, for me, the path to broader acceptance of concealed carry starts with a tiny, common-sense concession of something like the training I mentioned. It eases the fears of those on the center-left, and over time, exposes them to more (responsible) gun-owners, and eventually leads to greater acceptance. To me, that seems like a win over the back-and-forth issue this always seems to be.
And, by having the political right be the ones to offer the ‘concession’, they can retain the right to determine what that training involves, keeping the loony types on the far left out of it.
Anyway, as you said, it’s ‘just an idea’.
@ 28 I can understand that concern. I’d be fine with the government making it a requirement to take an NRA-recommended course, for example, which leaves the government without much wiggle room, since the course content rests with the NRA. The intention is really two-fold – one, actually give people some basic instruction, and two, ease the fears of people who aren’t gun-owners who are sometimes rightly concerned about people being startled, whipping out a pistol, and having no real practiced control over it.
As for your second point, I can see that, too – I hadn’t thought about it before, honestly. That said, in every problem, an opportunity. Everyone already knows guns can be dangerous, so let the people whine about how ‘mandatory’ training proves it. Then say, “We designed this training because we believe in responsibility – would you rather we didn’t have this training?”. I think that’s a net win for public opinion since it shows a willingness to ensure people are handling things with care.
And I understand the people make up the militia, but people back then and people today have vastly different amounts of experience with firearms. I’m not sure the founding fathers had a crystal ball and envisioned a time when most of the populace didn’t have family-based training in such things.
Cars kill a lot of people, too. Living in the DC metro area with all these horrible drivers, I think it is time we address car control.
Anonymous: Federal law has defined the term “militia” since shortly after the 2nd Amendment was ratified – e.g., since 1792. It’s defined today as all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 (or older, if they’re members of National Guard), plus all females who are members of the National Guard. It is not limited to members of any organized military unit, and never has been. See 10 USC 311. (The definition in the Militia Act of 1792 was similar, except it was limited to free males.)
There is thus very little ambiguity about the legal meaning of the term “militia” as used in the 2nd Amendment, or as used today. However, there is a huge amount of disinformation spread by the anti-gun crowd about the meaning of the term. Whether that’s due to ignorance or malicious intent on their part, I can’t definitively say. I’d guess it’s probably about a 50/50 mix.
perhaps a solution is not necessarily training (who defines adequate?) but an objective evaluation: a standardized US target on which a potential buyer must score to a specific standard. To some extent it has the same flaws – someone needs to set the standards, plus when is it mandated – before purchase? Within 6 months of purchase (then what do yo do if the person fails?) How do you keep the testing from becoming a national ownership database? What target/ range/weapon – lots of difference between a .22 rifle at 25 yards and a .45 at say 10 yards? Given you could address all of that…. Now on the other hand, here in Texas CHL applicants have to pass a shooting test at the range. It is not exactly what you call stressful, but it at least theoretically establishes that the licensee is no less competent than a NY cop. (yes, that was sarcasm)
Well, I’m doing my part. Took our NCOIC to the range yesterday at lunch for “Gunpowder Therapy.” Going with another “old guy” tomorrow for some more.
My question is, what’s the GOP stance on concealed carry on military installations? If they want a full-country reciprocal agreement, does that mean I should be able to carry on the Federal Enclave?
THAT’s what I want.
^^Only if there are Afghan or Iraq “allies” on base….
I look at it this way:
–Liberals/anti-gunners would have us prove that we’re NOT mentally unstable, etc., before we could own or carry a weapon.
–Conservatives/pro-2A types would say that the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms unless we prove ourselves incapable of such; my old recruiting phrase of “medically/morally/physically qualified” comes to mind here.
Now, anyone who understands logic knows you cannot prove a negative. The liberals/anti-gunners either 1–don’t know this (not likely), or 2–do know it and don’t care (far more likely.) But that isn’t going to stop them from making me do what is logically impossible and practically nearly so.
Intentional? Nah, really?
@ Hondo: Thanks for that – I was unaware there was a clear definition. Upon doing some additional reading, I also discovered that the courts decided in 2008 that one’s right to own a gun is protected, irrespective of service in a ‘militia’ [554 U.S. 570].
I guess that’s a positive thing since otherwise, by the definition of ‘militia’ in [10 USC 311], one could argue that non-veterans over the age of 45 and veterans over the age of 64 are not considered ‘militia’ and thus not covered under 2A.
That said, I think there’s still plenty of legal ‘wiggle room’, for better or worse. Take the ‘Free Speech Zone’ ruling, for example, which decided that while the right to free speech shall not be infringed, the government CAN determine time, place and manner in which your message can be freely spoken. To me, that seems (at first blush; I haven’t thought about it much) to be a less-than-good solution, and given the choice between a similar ruling being made for 2A, or a workable, well-supported solution like some basic proficiency training before initial procurement of a weapon, I’d always take the latter. It’s more resistant to shifts in political winds.
OK, I know this will get me into some hot water here, but, I started my Sons firearms training at age 2! He was old enough to understand the concepts of simple right and wrong and was able to know what he was allowed to touch. He never had access to any firearms in our home, but, could possibly in a friends home. I made sure he knew the dangers. I have started my Grand Daughter out at 2 as well. She reconizes a “boombadygun” and know that they are off limits, IF she ever sees one. Training starts at home. She wants to and will accompany me hunting this year on our farm where she will see the men and women she loves the most, handle the firearms in the safest manner possible. She will be in less danger with me in the field than at home where errant bullets have been known to find their way into (not ours but others homes) by illegal road hunters. If I was to die the day after she became proficient in handling firearms, then I would die satisfied that she KNOWS how to protect, provide and survive on her own. This BS of mandating training has merit, but, I will know how she is trained and it should start early in life in order to protect her young life from being killed by something she has no knowledge about in another setting.