On 6/12/2014 9:52 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:18:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/11/2014 10:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:56:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/11/2014 8:32 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 6/11/2014 7:21 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:11:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:25:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:41:42 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:17:05 -0400, wrote:

If people didn't "play games" with cars everyone would be driving a
Corolla (or some other "sensible" car).
If we put the same kind of restrictions on cars you want on guns they
would have 5 point seat belts for all occupants, there would be speed
governors, biometric sensors to be sure only authorized drivers were
driving, high performance cars would be banned and we would all have
to wear helmets.

It would certainly save lives (more than gun restrictions) and you
could still get back and forth to work "unhindered".

That's baloney. There's no test for owning a firearm, you don't have
to know the laws, you just go in and fill out the paperwork and if
you're not a felon, you get a gun.

You really need to get out a little more. States are already moving
that way and you want more

Not one state allows you to operated a car without proper training.

HUH? A drive around the block without hitting anything and parking
the car when you were 16 does not demonstrate any particular proper
training.
After that, for the next 70 years, anyone who can hobble up to the
counter, read line 3 on the eye chart and write a check is "properly
trained". It is mail order in most states these days.
Talk about dogs that can't hunt.


Your analogy doesn't hold water. In other words that dog won't hunt.

Woof Woof.

Most kids I know have to take a minimum of 40 hours of classroom
instruction and 20+ hours of driving. Please tell me which states
require anywhere near that amount of instruction or training under the
supervision of an instructor to own a gun.

I just looked and if you are over 18 here you only have to take a
"drug and alcohol awareness course"
That is new
You can't even buy a gun if you are under 18. (21 for handguns)

BTW I am not sure I ever heard any of you say the shooter was not
proficient enough with his gun.
In fact some of were bitching that Lanza was too well trained.

In spite of all of that training you seem to think drivers get, they
kill about 95 people a day and nobody really seem to care as long as
it doesn't **** up traffic.

BTW there are several states that do require some training for a
handgun card and all of them require training for a concealed carry
card


If you have a DD214 with anything greater than a general discharge you
can fore go the training. If you are active duty or reserve you can fore
go the training.


That's not true in all states. Massachusetts for example does not
recognize a DD214 in lieu of the required NRA and State Police approved
safety course that is mandatory to obtain a permit of any kind.

There are other several other optional courses offered that, in some
cases, a DD214 *with* pistol qualification (that just about everyone
gets if they were in the military) qualifies you to *take* the course.
It doesn't qualify you as having successfully completed it.

Don't let our new AG or Governor know about how your Commonwealth screws
you.


What can I say? Trying to exit stage right. (or left, so not to
politically offend anyone).

It's well established and recognized by everyone up here ... the pro-gun
groups and the no-guns groups ... that we have the most confusing and
screwed up gun laws in the nation. Two major state agencies/departments
that contradict each other but both determine what's banned and what's
not. Funny thing is that for all the laws, restrictions and bans the
one thing that is not even mentioned in MA General Laws regarding guns
is "open carry". There are *no* laws on the books that prohibit it.

Of course, nobody in their right mind who wants to keep his/her permit
would waltz down main street with a six shooter strapped to their waist,
but there is no law that prohibits it.


===

No law against "brandishing" a firearm? That's what would get you
arrested in many places.

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/



I've read just about all the MA General Laws on firearms in an attempt
at being as informed as I can. I don't recall the exact section or
wording but it is illegal to *consciously* show a concealed weapon as a
threat or in anger. It's not specifically called "bandishing" but is
basically the same thing. However, the statutes only talk about
requirements for "concealed carry". No where do they discuss Open
Carry or identify any laws against it. Theoretically one could open
carry without exhibiting any threatening attitude but I wouldn't test
the law (or lack of).


I wonder if those types of laws might be more municipal laws. If hunting is allowed in the state,
then there wouldn't be a statewide ban on 'brandishing' a firearm. However, Boston may well have
such a law, or any other city/municipality.


Boston and it's immediate surrounding sections are basically "no issue"
areas for concealed carry permits and are probably very restrictive in
the other 3 permit classes as well. It's the pulsating heart of
"progressive" liberalism and Mini-Me would like nothing better than to
ban all guns everywhere.