On 1/1/2013 11:49 AM, Dave wrote:

Okay, usenetmonster (my server) didn't get it and neither did Astraweb
per Doug. We're both victims of the black hole it seems. Moving on...

Here's the reply I posted.
==========================
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:26:46 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Share with us your plan, regulation, law, whatever that will make you
feel comfortable with the ease (or lack thereof) of we poor commoners to
obtain a gun.

What should a law abiding citizen - or any citizen for that matter -
have to go through to be able to possess a gun?

I only have my Canadian experience of previously owning firearms when
I was a member of a local gun club. I (mostly) subscribe to the tenets
of what my firearms license demanded.

The requirements between owning a rifle and owning a hand gun were
different and still are. To own a hand gun (the two I owned were a .22
Browning Challenger and a Colt .45) I had to belong to a gun club. I
had to go through instruction and testing which took several weeks.

Once I passed all that and was approved, then I had to get an F.A.C.
(firearms acquisition certificate). I also had to get a transport
permit. (not carry permit, transport permit). Carrying was and still
is extremely illegal.

Well... How about this? I'm located in Illinois outside of Chicago.
Since about 1967 or so in order to own, possess or buy a firearm or
ammunition of ANY kind (from .22 plinker through .44mag or whatever) I
had to apply for and receive a Firearm Owner's Identification Card
issued by the state police. Obtained after a background check that
included state police ident files and FBI records. I also had to swear
that I was not a habitual drunkard or mentally ill and had not been
treated as an inpatient for that sort of thing.

Federally there are several strictures in place as well. If you are
convicted of a felony - ANY felony - that serves as a lifetime ban
against possession, use, purchase of firearms. Slap your wife or whip
your kid because he set fire to your sports car? That's domestic
violence and it's adios to your right to own, possess, buy, use a
firearm - ANY FIREARM. Sadly, there are not a few unemployed former law
enforcement officers who thought maybe they'd be exempt.

With the mental health thing, that admittedly was kind of an honor
system. You swear you weren't locked up in a padded cell but there was
no way to really check. Legislation changed and made that possible and
it is now screened against health records.

I'm old enough to have skated by on the firearms training associated
with hunting, etc. but as a former LEO, I have been trained.



By owning a hand gun, the police could come by at any time (without a
warrant) and demand to see my guns, first to confirm that they were
there and second to confirm that they were responsibly stored.
Although, there was not one inspection in the ten or so years that I
was target shooting.

Well, you got me there. That warrantless search thing will NEVER fly in
this country and shouldn't. Pass the law to establish the proper thing
to do and react when they don't. Don't presume that the law will be
violated by the good people as an excuse to intrude? If Canada should
happen to ban condoms, do you think the authorities should have the
right to enter your home at O dark thirty, lay a cold Maglite on your
butt cheeks and ask you "pull out for a moment so we can see what you
have there?"


Which "citizens" should be barred from possessing a gun, PERIOD?

Just my opinion of course, but I'd say criminals with a conviction for
certain types of crimes. People who have been determined to have
certain mental aberrations.

Agreed and see above.


In the end, I've always felt that it should be difficult (not
impossible) to obtain a gun or rifle. But then, I am a Canadian. I
might well feel differently in the US, but that also leads me to ask.
Would I want to live in a place where I was worried enough about my
safety to want a firearm on hand at all times?

When seconds count, the police are just minutes (if you are EXTREMELY
lucky) away. My wife has no particular problem with guns (thank God)
but wasn't and isn't a rabid concealed carry proponent. Even so,
driving through areas of rural Arizona, along old Route 66 in the mining
country where individualists are living by themselves maybe ten or
fifteen miles away from the nearest other living person and maybe twenty
to thirty miles from some town that MIGHT have a gas station, she really
saw the need.

The answer to that is Maybe. I suspect that many in the US are so
comfortable having guns around and in their lives, that it's just
second nature. Guess there's nothing much wrong with that, but then
there's those damned stats that appear to say that gun violence is
higher in the US than many other countries, certainly more that CA.

There ARE a lot of gun crimes. No argument. They tend to follow the
population trends as to the number of incidents as well. Big cities,
lots of people, lots of nasty people, lots of crime. The other thing
that they have is lots of laws preventing gun possession.

I am close to Chicago which has some of the toughest and insane gun laws
in the world. Until recent Supreme Court decisions Chicago had pretty
much a de facto gun ban. Seen how that's working out? Just over 500
homicides for 2012 as the big ball fell in Times Square. Come visit the
city and stroll the Magnificent Mile of Michigan Avenue (a gem, BTW) and
get mugged by marauding gangs of young criminals. They are empowered by
the fact that Chicago is still "gun free", If you're lucky they will
not shoot or stab you. This in the last state of the union to prohibit
concealed carry by properly vetted citizens.

Their solution? Take away the guns that they think they can get from
the honest citizens everywhere while continuing to ignore the real
problem or point to the false hope that taking guns from John Q Public
living 100 miles outside the city will prevent the next 500 shootings in
the city of Chicago. What are the chances?

Back to the laws and gun violence. An objective review of the
statistics, news accounts, incident reports will show that prohibition
against guns does relatively little to prevent their illegal use in this
country. To the contrary, those areas of less dense population, where
coincidentally there seems to be less anti-gun legislation which, of
course, means more guns in the hands of the people, and we see less
crime with or without guns. Criminals do not want a level playing
field. Why do we want to tilt the odds so lopsided in their favor.

Gun crimes have dropped in those areas where CCW has been approved. Has
it stopped all gun crimes? Hell no, only God can do that by vaporized
EVERY SINGLE GUN AND PIECE OF AMMUNITION IN EXISTENCE in one fell swoop.
If/when that happens I will be glad to see my guns disappear but it won't.

Shall we now talk about the assault weapons ban and the urgent need to
include bayonet lugs as one of the criteria? Let's see if we can find
some stats on how many drive-by bayonettings were prevented during the
former bang