[HavHav]

I'd love to second you about the god-given right part, but your use of the word 'teh' has made me think otherwise!

[KamikazeSM]

The term for it is natural.  Whether or not you acknowledge that God was the one that gave it to you when life was breathed into your body, is up to you.  As for me, I do.  The point is that there are inalienable rights that exist just because you are a living person, regardless of a government that tries to tell you one way or another.

Other than the licensing thing and that you think there should be laws for guns and airsoft, what is your point?  The only thing I can gather that you say decisively is that we should open our borders.  I don't quite get your point about militia... are you a strict constructionist and take the words "well-regulated militia" to mean 'guns are only allowable for a well-regulated militia'? I think any reasonable person would see that the way that sentence is constructed, the 2nd amendment provides for a militia AND for individual citizens to keep and to bear arms.  This exists in part so that citizens may rise up against any sort of tyranny... too many laws can add to being tyrannical.  

As far as training goes, I think it is idiotic not to know/learn how to handle any sort of tool that you may be working with.  But should it be mandated?  The logical conclusion of that line of thinking (especially with the cars) is that first, guns should mandate training and licensing since they can endanger self and others, therefore things that endager self or others should require training and licensing, therefore a chainsaw or a baseball bat or a kitchen knife should require licensing since they do have that capacity to endanger self or others and on a FAR more regular basis than guns, especially for those who work with them. But what lumberjack gets a chainsaw license?  what carpenter one for a table saw?  When used improperly they can harm too.

My point on the licensing is this: I learned how to drive.  I took an idiotic driver's test that I probably could have passed half asleep.  Then I was licensed.  But when has that ever stopped someone from endangering others in their cars?  It hsoft gun until I was 18. I know how it feels to not be able to fully participate in this sport, but I already feel that age limits are a good thing. I had to wait and it didn't kill me. (And I have waited... I first learned of airsoft when I started playing paintball- when I was 12.)

[Harley]

My appologies for getting hot headed about this topic.  Every day I read or hear about some type of gun legislation that is "supposed" to be for the good of the people.  When in fact it's for the good of some damn politictian.  Just watch what is happening a couple hundred miles away over in Kalifornia.  It seems like a bad dream to me at times.  Here in America they're legislating what kind of firearm you can and can't own, and then at a whim knock on your door and take it from you.  Not just here but in so many other countries as well.  I watched as good friends of mine who use to come down from Ontario Canada to shoot IPSC matches with us back in NY, slowly had their guns taken from them.  

Leakingpen I feel your pain for your friend.  One of my best friends from high school took a shotgun and put it in his mouth and pulled the trigger over a girl.  He's not the first I lost that way and may not be the last.  He could have just as easily driven his car off a cliff or into on coming traffic, taken an over dose of pills and so on.  

Education is the only real answer here.  One of the very things that the NRA endorses.  Ever heard of the Eddie Eagle program?  The NRA strongly supports teaching children what to do in the event they should come across a firearm.  Of course the government won't have that, better to be ignorant of things than to educate.  I'm all for each and every gun owner to learn how to properly handle their firearms, but not registration of firearms owners.  Other states already mandate that and it's just another means of regulating firearms ownership.  

We need to face reality that we're always going to have irresponsible people driving cars, owning guns, etc, etc, but if we can educate them early and instill responsible habbits from the beginning we will be helping to eliminate some of the instances.  You yourself stated that you learned to handle firearms at an early age, 6 I belive you stated.  You were taught right.  That's were we need to put our focus.

End of rant.

[Paco]

leakingpen...

I'll be honest; I don't understand your point.  You contradict yourself left and right.  You say you're "radical left wing", and then you say that the gov't knows too much.  You then say that you are for licensing for firearms (but didn't you just say that you thought the gov't ALREADY knew too much?).  Then you say you agree with the article I posted "completely".  Strange, since it's about how DUMB of an idea gun registration is, and how it is an utter failure in Canada.

While your friend's accident was tragic, I fail to understand how a license for a firearm would have prevented it.  Do driver's licenses prevent drunk drivers?  Do they prevent drivers from killing someone in a similar accident?

Simplistically, the left wants government to be responsible for everyone's actions (thus giving up some freedoms in trade for <i>perceived</i> "safety"), while the right believe that each individual is responsible for his (or her) own actions.  I think that this is why society here in the US is degrading so rapidly.  So many people want to hold anyone but themselves responsible for their own actions and/or what happens to them.  It wasn't MY fault that the hot coffee fell on my lap - it was McDonald's fault!  It's not MY fault I got fat by eating fast food - it was the fast food places fault!  If anyone's offended by this, I apologize now, but things like removing the "10 COmmandments" status because it may offend some group, gay rights/"marriage", affirmitive action, etc, etc...  when is enough, enough?  Sigh...

[TheCrow]

Licensing a gun owner does no good.  All of us on this board, of the appropriate age, are licensed operators of a motor vehicle.  When was the last time one of us had a wreck, a fender-bender, or exceeded the speed limit?  Did that drivers license prevent someone from having those accidents or breaking the posted speed laws?  I think not.  As stated before, how many DUIs do we hear about every day?  99.9% of those pulled over are licensed drivers, did that license stop them from driving drunk?  I can hear it now..."but officer, you can't arrest me for drunk driving, I have license a to do it..."

My point is, force a person to go to a government "training" program to get a license, and all you've done is force a person to comply with something.  Their gun license will not prevet negligence, accidents, or even murder.  Everyone is responsible for their own actions and no, it is not the guns fault!

[leakingpen]

crow, people who do dumb **** with their auto can lose that license.  usually keeping them off the road.  (not always)  someone who does dumb **** with guns should lose thier right to have a gun.     es no?

[Paco]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />crow, people who do dumb **** with their auto can lose that license.  usually keeping them off the road.  (not always)  someone who does dumb **** with guns should lose thier right to have a gun.  yes no?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Um...  did you read my post - right before TheCrow's post?

I still fail to see how licensing firearms owners (like car drivers) will PREVENT accidents.  Once that accident happens, isn't it already too late?  It seems that you also forget that ANY felony will preclude the convicted of EVER owning a firearm again except in very, very rare circumstances.  Also, some misdemeanors bring about the same loss of firearm ownership/posession.  It's already that way.  Did you forget that?  Too bad that it isn't that way for driver's huh?  Kill someone with a car, and you'll eventually get to drive again in most cases.

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />crow, people who do dumb **** with their auto can lose that license.  usually keeping them off the road.  (not always)  someone who does dumb **** with guns should lose thier right to have a gun.  yes no?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Someone convited of a felony loses along with their right to vote the right to own or even possess not just a firearm but also ammunition.  Being caught with even just one cartridge can put a felon back in prison.  So to answer you question/statement yes they should and do already.  In this case you lose some of your constitutional rights.  In your case you lose your privilege to drive.

[leakingpen]

harley, what about someone not convicted of a felony?

[Paco]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />harley, what about someone not convicted of a felony?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

?  What are you asking?

What about them?

What about someone not convicted of manslaughter while driving drunk?

I don't understand what you're asking.

[leakingpen]

what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their firearm?  should we let them continue on?

[Paco]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their firearm?  should we let them continue on?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You could do this all day...  let's turn your question around:

 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their vehicle?  should we let them continue on [driving]?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

or

 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their swimming pool?  should we let them continue on?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

or

 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their kitchen knife?  should we let them continue on?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />harley, what about someone not convicted of a felony?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If they're not convited then I would take it they were found innocent.  Do we condemn drivers of cars found innocent of man slaughter?

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />what about someone who causes an accident thats ruled an accident through lack of knowledge of how to handle their firearm?  should we let them continue on?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

First of all that would not happen.  Let's throw an example out there.  You're over my house and I'm showing you my nice new shiney pistol.  I unload it and hand it to you, wherein then you point it and and pull the trigger and it goes boom and I'm dead.  So here's the delima.  I did unload it, but you never checked it yourself.  2nd, you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.  These are common sense rules and not law.  So when you go to court and your defense lawyer asks you why you didn't check to make sure the gun wasn't loaded you reply, well Harley unloaded it in front of me so I assumed it was safe.  You'll most likely get off.  Now if you were to again be at my house, saw my shiney new pistol laying on the table and picked it up and repeated the above, point.. booom I'm dead.  You'll most likely go to jail.

The first example would be an accident pure and simple.  Then second would not since you didn't take any precautions to prevent it from happening.  Just my uneducated .02 worth from my days as a police officer.

[leakingpen]

harley, thats my point.  im a moron, and i ignored both the first and second cardinal rules of firearms.  should i still be allowed to posses firearms without showing that i know how to handle them safely?