TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:... I bought my first own gun, a Winchester single shot .22LR bolt action, at the age of twelve, "off the wall" (it was on display and the box was long since gone) and bicycled home with it across my handlebars.

That must have been a proud day.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Only the First Amendment contains the words "Congress shall make no law." I think the main reason is that at the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had official religions.

All the other amendments that protect individual rights are written in the passive voice.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, when they were actually running the government and making laws, saw no need for "gun control." From the 18th century until 1934, the only gun laws were racist.

I agree with you that economics is as much a science as chemistry; it just deals with an environment where it is much more difficult to perform experiments.

Once again, I apologize for not giving this response as much time and research as it deserves.

- Jim

This discussion has progressed quite a bit while I was out, and I don't have time now for extensive research.

I said crime rates are higher now than in 1968 because I lived it, and I've been interested in criminology for a long time. It may be impossible to find good statistics, because reporting standards have changed significantly. (The definition of sexual assault has changed so that it is reported far more often than it was 40 years ago. People used to stand by and watch fistfights, if no one was getting seriously hurt. Now they call 911 for a slap or shove, and someone is arrested for assault.)

This document contains some good information, including this:

The Nation's murder rate was 6.8 per 100,000 population in 1997 compared to 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1950.

In 1950, you could buy firearms though the mail from Sears and Penney. You could buy them at most hardware stores.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices....

If you make something harder, people do less of it.

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Aside from weapons issues, the country is wealthier on average than it was then, and better-educated.

I have a theory: more boys are growing up without stable parental guidance. Mostly they are being raised by single mothers or other family members, or in foster care.

I am not saying that all or even most children of single parents turn out to be criminals. I am saying that if you look at criminals, most of them were not raised by responsible fathers.

- Jim

KBCraig wrote:Jim Dark has some experience being accosted by the law while in possession of a muzzle-loader. Maybe he'll chime in...

In his case it was a rifle. As I understand that story (heard second-hand), he would have been OK if he were carrying a .50 BMG rifle.

Short version: someone saw his rifle in his car at a drive-through and called 911.

- Jim

DSARGE wrote:If open carry were legal in Texas, I'd get a cap and ball revolver like Eastwood had in "Pale Rider" and have a holster worn low on the hip.

Consider this:

PC §46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter:...
(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:
(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition....
(5) "Handgun" means any firearm that is designed, made, or
adapted to be fired with one hand.

If you squint a certain way, this part of the law could mean that a cap-and-ball revolver is not a handgun prohibited in 46.02.

AFAIK, this interpretation has not been tested in court.

Cap-and-ball and muzzle-loading pieces are also not firearms under federal law. You can order them by mail.

- Jim

wjmphoto wrote:There is no logical reason to not have a process of licensing guns for the purpose of carrying them in public, just as there is no logical reason to not have a system of licensing people in order to drive a vehicle.

There is a logical reason: neither of these systems works.

wjmphoto wrote:But there are some very big differences in demographics that do make Vermont a great deal different that other places. They are overwhlemingly a white state with few minorities.

Thank you for sharing that observation.

- Jim

wjmphoto wrote:The UN has no bearing on the US.

If a future U.S. government that is anti-RKBA accedes to a such a treaty, it will have a great deal of bearing. According to Article 6 of the Constitution, treaties have an effect equal to the Constitution itself.

wjmphoto wrote:As for the situation in the capital, it is not as final as people think after the federal district court overturned their laws regarding firearm ownership. Granted it is now on appeal, but I do have full faith in our system of government to determine these types of laws to be unconstitutional.

The jury is still out, as they say. At this moment, an ordinary citizen cannot legally possess a handgun in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Supreme Court is not notably pro-RKBA. On the rare occasion when they overturn a law, they do it on the most narrow terms.

I don't say that criminals and mentally ill people should not have weapons. Obviously they should not. The question is how you prevent them from doing so. No restriction placed on the rest of us can prevent it.

Comparisons with freedom of speech are irrelevant. It is illegal to say certain things, but the government cannot license your mouth or pen. It can only penalize people after the fact for what they said or wrote.

- Jim

wjmphoto wrote:The simple fact remains that keeping a felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm legally is vastly different from stopping all citizens from buying a firearm altogether. One does not rationally lead to or equate to the other.

In every case, in the United States, we have seen a progression from an unrestricted RKBA to the present situation, where you cannot legally possess a handgun in our nation's capital and other cities. It is always one more "reasonable" step to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

The theory of gun control in the United Nations Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons conference is that all illegal weapons start out as legal weapons, and therefore legal weapons must be restricted as much as possible and preferably banned.

- Jim

wjmphoto wrote:Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career.

In 38 years we have gone down the slippery slope from anyone being able to buy any revolver, semi-automatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun by U.S. mail, to making it onerously difficult in many places and totally illegal in some.

Is that not slippery enough?

You can't stop criminals and deranged people from obtaining weapons or carrying out evil deeds. It is impossible.

- Jim