BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

eleven bravo wrote:

Obama 2012!

AussieReaper wrote:

An ironic troll since he made his way through life with tax payers money.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Teds 2012

FatherTed wrote:

Teds 2012

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic … -boom.aspx

New Federal Report Shows Right-to-Carry Boom

A new report this week by the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirms that the number of Americans exercising the right to carry firearms for personal protection is skyrocketing.

GAO investigators gathered information from state authorities nationwide about the number of permits issued, eligibility requirements for those permits, and the extent to which states recognize permits issued by other states. The researchers also conducted a more in-depth review of nine selected states. While information on eligibility requirements and reciprocity is easily available online (for example, on NRA-ILA's "Gun Laws" page), some of the statistical information in the report is remarkable.

With hard numbers or estimates from all but three of the 49 states that have laws allowing for issuance of carry permits, the GAO reports that there were about 8 million active permits in the United States as of December 31, 2011. That's about a million more than previous estimates by scholars.

The report also includes calculations of permit holders as a percentage of the population. Although the numbers for some states are skewed by issuance of nonresident permits, the GAO's figures show that in two states--Georgia and South Dakota--more than one in 10 adult residents have carry permits. Several other states come close; five percent or more of Kentucky, Tennessee and Wyoming residents have permits.

Of further note is the report's discussion of how law enforcement officials can verify the validity of permits. As the report explains, many states make permit information easily available to law enforcement in other states, either directly or through information sharing networks. This should help ease concerns raised by some lawmakers during last year's debate on H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act."

Nothing, of course, will ever ease the concerns of one of the lawmakers who requested the study. Anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has blocked Senate consideration of national right-to-carry legislation, and seized on minor aspects of the report for a predictable attack on the proposal.

First, Sen. Feinstein claims that people disqualified from getting permits in one state could obtain them elsewhere. Of course, it's no surprise that the 50 states have different laws. But the report makes clear how minor many of those differences are.

Second, she claims "it is nearly impossible" for state authorities to know if a permit holder commits a crime somewhere else. In fact, the report also makes clear that authorities in the nine selected states would learn of such crimes during background checks for renewals, if not sooner--and also mentions that the FBI is developing a national "Rap Back" service that will allow states to be notified of arrests anywhere in the country. That system should be available by 2014, and will make Sen. Feinstein's concern obsolete.

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Teds 2012

FatherTed wrote:

Teds 2012

Fuckit, I'm in.
A drunk Irishman with a sense of humor.
It could work

Ireland has had that every year since Ireland existed.
Take a look and see how thats worked out so far.

rdx-fx wrote:

or whatever it is that passes for blood in their veins... single malt is it?

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

You can't legislate common sense and compassion.
On the contrary, the more you pile on bureaucratic legislation, the more you absolve people of common sense & personal responsibility.  When you reach the point of bureaucratic leviathan 'Nanny State', you get a population that considers 'anything not illegal is okay'.

There are always going to be dipshits, irresponsible assclowns, and sociopathic crazies. A fundamental problem of society is to remove those undesirables from the larger population of law-abiding, peaceful citizens without causing undue pressure on responsible, law abiding citizens.

absolutely, 100%, spot on. you can start by amending the law once again to reflect what you said above. you know, by designating an actual sensible purpose for the guns owned by the people. maybe when an average joe stops thinking that his shotgun is there to protect his imaginary freedom from imaginary commies he'll be less likely to play rambo in a cinema.

rdx-fx wrote:

I think it more likely the PhD student at the Batman premiere was despondent over his student loans.

<here was some stuff on the hardships one experiences in america when he takes a loan he can't pay back>

Welcome to Academic Science in America

Shahter wrote:

ok, let me make it plain for you:

the law states that guns are there for you do be able to defend your freedom. there's no such thing as freedom - not the actual thing and not even any consensus in your society on what it might be, practically or metaphysically. as long as that law stays you create a cognitive dissonance in the minds of the people, man, and there's no saying how they are going to interpret that shit. there are always going to be dipshits, irresponsible assclowns, and sociopathic crazies, yes, but there are going to be more of them in your society compared to others as long as you keep feeding your people bullshit like that second amendment.