More Arizona politics hooray guns!

[armin]

I wonder what her freakin excuse would have been for an accidental discharge Moron! I don't own a gun but not opposed to them at all. Have a rather immature friend that does own one because he likes to go to the shooting range, but even he knows a gun is no toy and never ever points it at someone. People play around with guns as if they're toys and next thing ya got is a dead body, idiots. I would have waited for the bitch to put her gun down and then beat her up, women or not, shed deserve it.

[VictorCharlie]

So... ok, it is legal to buy more or less any kind of caliber you want and to carry it with you, I find it wacko but ok, fine. Is it legal though to carry a gun in a public meeting and to remove totally the security from it? Beside the 2nd that allows you to own weapons, is there no very strict laws about the state of the weapon itself (i.e how it is secure for instance) and very strict punishment system if you point it with a full load on other's face?

Gun laws vary from state to state. California has more regulations than most on what kind of firearms you can own and the magazine capacity. The ability to carry, how to carry and where one can carry a firearm also differ between states. AZ happens to have some of the most relaxed laws in the country. In Texas you can have a concealed license but private vendors can put signs on their doors stating that weapons cannot be brought on the premises. Most state and federals buildings in Texas are off limits as well. AZ allows open carry, meaning you can go to the grocery store with a firearm on your belt for the world to see. I wish more of our laws varied from state to state versus broad federal policies. Gun ownership in the U.S. is a good example of how federlism should work...unless you live in a state whose policies differ from your own opinion. You occasionally see the study where gun related homicides in Hawai (strict gun laws) is compared to gun related homicides in Louisiana (lax gun laws) that seem to show a correlation in easy access to firearms to gun deaths. Of course if one did the same study between California (strict gun laws) and Utah (very lax guns laws) the reverse would be true. Just goes to show humans will find a way to kill one another regardless of the access to guns, knives or whatever. Advocates of the 2nd should roundly denounce the AZ representative. She is an example of everything that is wrong about the immature, irresponsible and uninformed gun owner.

[marbleheadmaui]

So... ok, it is legal to buy more or less any kind of caliber you want and to carry it with you, I find it wacko but ok, fine. Is it legal though to carry a gun in a public meeting and to remove totally the security from it? Beside the 2nd that allows you to own weapons, is there no very strict laws about the state of the weapon itself (i.e how it is secure for instance) and very strict punishment system if you point it with a full load on other's face?

Gun laws vary from state to state. California has more regulations than most on what kind of firearms you can own and the magazine capacity. The ability to carry, how to carry and where one can carry a firearm also differ between states. AZ happens to have some of the most relaxed laws in the country. In Texas you can have a concealed license but private vendors can put signs on their doors stating that weapons cannot be brought on the premises. Most state and federals buildings in Texas are off limits as well. AZ allows open carry, meaning you can go to the grocery store with a firearm on your belt for the world to see. I wish more of our laws varied from state to state versus broad federal policies. Gun ownership in the U.S. is a good example of how federlism should work...unless you live in a state whose policies differ from your own opinion. You occasionally see the study where gun related homicides in Hawai (strict gun laws) is compared to gun related homicides in Louisiana (lax gun laws) that seem to show a correlation in easy access to firearms to gun deaths. Of course if one did the same study between California (strict gun laws) and Utah (very lax guns laws) the reverse would be true. Just goes to show humans will find a way to kill one another regardless of the access to guns, knives or whatever. Advocates of the 2nd should roundly denounce the AZ representative. She is an example of everything that is wrong about the immature, irresponsible and uninformed gun owner.

BINGO on the bold. But I'd go further. The only laws that should be made at the Federal level should be those that can ONLY be made at the Federal Level (Federal Taxes, national defense issues etc). The only laws made at the State levels should be those that can ONLY be made at the State level (State taxes, roads that go through multiple counties etc).

90%+ of all laws should be made at the town/city level. That includes gun issues.

Why should it be this way? It maximizes freedom. If I don't like the laws in my town? I can move one over an escape them. More burdensome to have to leave the state and most burdensome to have to leave the country. There should be, I dunno, 250,000 flavors of freedom in the USA.

[Ghost]

In Dade County in Florida, (when I lived there that is, do not know about today) you could carry a pistol in a holster down the street, so long as it can be seen. No permit needed. If you want to conceal it, you had to have a carry permit.

Rifles could be carried in rear window of your truck, but in a car, it had to be in the trunk.

NRA Member since I was 16 when I received my first rifle.

[Nameless]

So... ok, it is legal to buy more or less any kind of caliber you want and to carry it with you, I find it wacko but ok, fine. Is it legal though to carry a gun in a public meeting and to remove totally the security from it? Beside the 2nd that allows you to own weapons, is there no very strict laws about the state of the weapon itself (i.e how it is secure for instance) and very strict punishment system if you point it with a full load on other's face?

Gun laws vary from state to state. California has more regulations than most on what kind of firearms you can own and the magazine capacity. The ability to carry, how to carry and where one can carry a firearm also differ between states. AZ happens to have some of the most relaxed laws in the country. In Texas you can have a concealed license but private vendors can put signs on their doors stating that weapons cannot be brought on the premises. Most state and federals buildings in Texas are off limits as well. AZ allows open carry, meaning you can go to the grocery store with a firearm on your belt for the world to see. I wish more of our laws varied from state to state versus broad federal policies. Gun ownership in the U.S. is a good example of how federlism should work...unless you live in a state whose policies differ from your own opinion. You occasionally see the study where gun related homicides in Hawai (strict gun laws) is compared to gun related homicides in Louisiana (lax gun laws) that seem to show a correlation in easy access to firearms to gun deaths. Of course if one did the same study between California (strict gun laws) and Utah (very lax guns laws) the reverse would be true. Just goes to show humans will find a way to kill one another regardless of the access to guns, knives or whatever. Advocates of the 2nd should roundly denounce the AZ representative. She is an example of everything that is wrong about the immature, irresponsible and uninformed gun owner.

Thanks for the info, I knew that the laws were different from state to state but I was wondering if there was some national policies that does apply to all the States before they can make their own regulation.
So to speak, what I am against is not that much that people can buy some fireweapons (especially about hunting rifles) but that they often can buy staggering calibers or military type of guns that can be extremely deadly (i.e automatic ones with almost endless loaders) or walk in their daily life with it. Weapons that one can buy should be (IMO) limited in term of type of weapons available and only be used/carried in some very specific places.
Sure, wackos shouldn,t be allowed to have guns and we should leave the mature ones a bit more loose but then again, such system is only possible to apply in very small community and not in a country where you have over 30 millions citizens. There is also the aspect that one can be very normal but simply snap off one day/get intoxicated with booze or drugs and do something really stupid. The big problem is that to avoid catastrophes (just like for the banking system and what happened in your country) we have to think mass psychology and to put some "strict" legislations to limit the possible extend of disasters. Does it mean a total ban gun? Perhaps not. I used to think so, now my stance on the matter has changed a bit, I think that just limiting the type of guns available to the common of mortals and limiting where you can own one/storage conditions could make the hell of a difference in the middle run.

[VictorCharlie]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

[armin]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

I'm not sure that most americans even would care anymore if the goverment became tyranical. I think most of them would be apathetic and just go along with it or something...you look at greece and they're out rioting cause the gov wants to raise the retirement from 53 to 55 hahaha, somehow I think we've gotten used to just bending over, just give us our dose of american idol and desperate housewives and well just go along with all the shit.

[Nameless]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

I will give you that VC: Your stand on fireweapon is quite different than most "pro second" I had the chance to talk with and has a few more arguments attached to it. I understand your point of view but as Armin said, I think that people would simply go apathic and go with the flow if the government would go too intrusive, especially because the government would probably repeat "for your security, for your security" like it already did a couple of time and people (most of them) would simply eat it and go forward. In my opinion, they already did when the Gov authorized "torture" or passed the patriot act and even then, most of the citizens have been quite apathic about it.
I also think that any "despotic" that would try to settle in the US knows the line too and would make sure to go progressively and to avoid the red zone that could cause a major uprising.
In that resepect, I wonder if all the drawbacks aren't overcoming the advantages in the US in the long run, especially if we consider that for a country which is at peace nationally (so which excludes places like Columbia or Mexico) has the highest rate of murder via firearms anually. IF people were all responsible like you, I sure wouldn't have any problems with it but it quite tickles me to know that such weapons are accessible to more or less anybody... and that it takes 16-18 to own a weapon but 21 to buy alcohol legally