the right to bear arms

[Firewall]

^ don't confuse "existing legislation" with "right to bear arms". It is perhaps just as difficult if not more difficult now for a civilians to get a gun in Australia or Brazil than it is to get here in T&T currently.

Also are you suggesting price discrimination would play a part? Because having money should never be a criteria for owning a gun. A person can be wealthy and still be arrogant and irrational with a short temper. Also with criminals admitting that they spend $30K on a gun smuggled in from Cedros, it seems they are willing to spend as well. The criminals already consider the purchase, so I do not see that as being a valid point of control.

What is YOUR "pressing need" to have a gun?

Existing legislation with regard to the examples posted. If those reform points have only now been incorporated I wonder what their previous legislation was. As to the right to bear arms, I believe I stated it should instead be a privilege not a constutionally enshrined "right".

I'm not suggesting it should, I'm saying that it would. Currently, a legal shotgun costs upward of $10000. Small arms can cost as much as $20000 if not more. Can the average citizen simply shell out that on a "luxury" purchase? Can the average "low" and "medium" income bracket afford such?

Having money should never be a criteria, but the lack of money is a control.

Why do criminals have guns or are willing to pay for them? I would suppose that as stated in the interview prior, to defend their "turf" and it gives them an advantage in their criminal activities and as such they can justify the purchase as a necessity.

I do not have any pressing need for a firearm. I could not afford one if access restrictions were loosened, but that does not change the fact that because i don't that there aren't people with legitimate need.

[Redman]

^ don't confuse "existing legislation" with "right to bear arms". It is perhaps just as difficult if not more difficult now for a civilians to get a gun in Australia or Brazil than it is to get here in T&T currently.

We dont have tough gun laws. We have a system that is subjective and arbitrary.
That I think is a major issue-you meet the requirements and the application stays on the Commish desk unless you know someone,there are also people that are awarded the FUL with blank application forms.
Absolute Discretion of the CoP.This is wrong.

The truth also is that the requirements to apply for an FUL in Tdad have little to do with whether or not I should have a fire arm.
For FUL the training is a joke, and anyone who is precepted could say that the qualification for an FUEC is a bigger joke-in terms of psychological state and competence in usage and safety.

I believe there should be a clear process to determine if you can own a fire arm-psych,medical,vision(more rigorous than currently done), no criminal record,a bond, and a standardized usage exam that includes a qualification on accuracy.

Once you have passed and own a fire arm, you agree to subject yourself to periodic RANDOM drug tests,and re certification on usage.I also think that annual medical,psych and vision tests should also be done.


This alone will ensure that the people that want to own a fire arm are able to access them with a strong likely hood that undesirable folks are screened.


We have a culture of non enforcement, and lack of management.
So criminals know that its highly unlikely that they would be pursued by TTPS ,so the only real risk is the intended victim being able to defend themselves.

That means that at the end of the day the law abiding citizens cannot depend on the law enforcement authorities to protect them in the case of a home invasion.Factually no police service in the world can help you if some one is already in your home

The idea of jumping through a window and being shot will give any one pause.And ultimately thats the goal-to reduce the likely hood of being involved in a crime.(now that I am more aware of the frequency )

Its a personal choice that we each have to make and I can respect either side of the argument.
I carry, and I hope to God that I never have to be involved in a situation,but the reality is that its a real possibility and I do what I can to avoid that.
In the same way I put on a seatbelt with the hope that I dont have to use it.
Same principle.

[[X]~Outlaw]

Duane, if you don't want a firearm just don't get one. But the government should make it easier for law abiding citizens who wants that option to legally own a firearm.

[88sins]

Now I observe that some think the cost of acquiring firearms locally is restrictive on who could afford them, & I'm inclined to point out that this is only so due to the fact that legal firearms sales are VERY small nationwide, primarily due to fact that there are extremely limited numbers of persons with FUL's that would purchase legal firearms. So dealers jack up prices because any 1 or a combination of 3 reasons
1.They are either not sure of when next they'll get a sale, sothe buyer has to provide them with enough money to make it worth their while
2. They feel if you want it bad enough & you're stupid/desperate/hurry enough you have to pay whatever price THEY call for the item, due to the limited number of dealers & gunsmiths
3. You have an FUL & they automatically assume it was either paid for or you have influence, either which way you supposed to have enough money for them to get a nice sale (even if they're selling crap) & they consider this the price of admission into a "unique & very exclusive members club.
There is an individual that I know of that quoted a price of TT$12000.00 for a ruger 10/22 to a friend of mine. This rifle at the time in question could be bought in the USA for USD$200-300 brand new. See the difference?
With more opened ownership policy for those that qualify this kind of price gouging & profiteering racket will quickly cease to occur, especially if persons would be allowed to import their own & have no need for the gunsmiths ,save repairs & supplies.

No one should believe it should be an out & out right to possess arms in any form, as in any idiot with an ID card & a few dollars could go buy a gun. The current issue is that persons that qualify & have a genuine desire to keep even small caliber arms(even for pest control, hunting, target shooting, marksmanship training) are routinely denied without reason and made to wait a decade (give or take a year or two) before being informed of being denied. And if you either bold enough or stupid enough to ask for a reason for the refusal(written or verbal), don't expect to get one unless you like being disappointed.

[88sins]

^ don't confuse "existing legislation" with "right to bear arms". It is perhaps just as difficult if not more difficult now for a civilians to get a gun in Australia or Brazil than it is to get here in T&T currently.

No one is confusing the two, the simple fact of the matter is that legislation does exist for the granting of FUL's to qualified applicants,& by extension if you qualify and want it it should be your right to have it to use responsibly, if not then that right can & should be taken away. If you attempt to take away an individuals right before he has a chance to know he has it, that is tantamount to attempting to enslave him. If for some reason TTPS and L/O decided that you were not allowed to drive on the nations roads, and they gave you no reason, they just don't feel like you should, wouldn't that be an infringement on your rights? The legislation is there but it is often used to deny this right to qualified applicants. The current legislation is severely flawed & applicants are often disregarded for whatever vague or nonexistent reason. Putting 1 person in charge of authorizing 10000+ applications is not an ideal method of dealing with the scenario, and using the word "backlog" all the time to justify the delay in granting an FUL is a mediocre excuse at best. We are essentially being held to ransom by the moods, gut instinct & work ethic of the CoP when applying the current legislation in its present form. If they were to allot 3 hours a month to the signing of FUL's,(after the CoP's underlings do the grunt work of the screening process of course) there would be more FUL holders & less brazen criminals. Its that's simple.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Regarding your analogy: Cars and guns are both a privilege not a right. I do not think that replacing cars with anything potentially lethal will hold when making an argument. Knives could be lethal; medicine could be lethal if improperly used; electricity could be lethal; stairs could be lethal; etc. But the difference is in the purpose or main use and the consequences of that use. The purpose of cars is for transport. The purpose of a gun is to cause harm or kill. In that case I think it is right that drivers license legislation be properly used to grant licenses while gun legislation be used to restrict licenses.

You are saying that the CoP is not able to stop crime but you want him to put more resources towards arming citizens? Why not take every available resource, including the underlings and the extra 3 hours a month toward enforcement of the existing laws?

All I am hearing in this thread is "I want a gun and I should be able to have one"

There are alot of things that you are denied from owning because it is illegal to do so but you do not suggest those laws are tantamount to slavery.

[[X]~Outlaw]

I suggest those laws are tantamount to slavery!

Anyone should be able to own anything they want once they have the means to acquire it. Why should someone tell me I can and cannot own something? What right do they have to impose those restrictions on me?

I also agree with legalizing ALL drugs. Taking or taking drugs is a personal decision and that decision comes with consequences. However it is complete BS that it could be legislated what an individual can or cannot put into their own body base on the moral compass of a few.

You mean to tell me a plant that is found naturally in nature is not evil because a man no different from you ore me says so? (This is oversimplified to make a point)

Lets take knives. I cannot carry a knife with a blade over a certain length but I can carry a big a$$ cutlass once it wrap in newspaper. Knives are one of mans most primal tools but carry one around is illegal because of some man made law?

Lets take guns, you cant legally own a gun but what if you have the skill and materials to make a gun, well that's still illegal. So now you have a law telling you what you can and cannot make with your own two hands and your mind. Maybe they would start outlawing having certain thoughts, oh why don't they just make ideas illegal that would fix everything if you can't think about it you defiantly won't do it.

Duane to be honest you sound like Atheist vs Religion. Like the west telling Iran that they cant have a nuclear program.

Atheist : I don't believe in god but that's not good enough for me...I don't want you to believe in god either.

Religion : We believe in god but that's not good enough for us...We have to convince you to believe in god to.

As I said, you don't want a gun don't get one. You don't want to smoke weed then don't. But its BS that you try to convince people who do that they shouldn't. This is exactly how stupid laws are past until they try to legislate everything and society becomes so restrictive it stifles it self.

There is a reason why there is a right to bear arms in the USA. It's not primarily for personal protection. It's there to make sure that the people would always have the means to standup to and if needed remove a tyrannical government.

Yes a gun is a weapon, why are weapons soooo bad. Did mommy tell you that only bad people use weapons? We as a species would not be were we are today if we did invent weapons.

You're thinking and people that think like you gives us a society where law abiding citizens are denied a tool that would help them defend themselves and property.

Gun laws only benefit criminals.

[MG Man]

and added to outlaw's point, I find yuh wife bess
I deserve de right tuh sit across de road and pelt ah rounds when she outside

[[X]~Outlaw]

and added to outlaw's point, I find yuh wife bess
I deserve de right tuh sit across de road and pelt ah rounds when she outside

And she has the right to walk inside if it bothers her. No legislation required, just common sense.

If however pelting a rounds from across the street not good enough for yuh and yuh decide to cause body harm to her well then she has the right to pull out her firearm and blast away your head or shoot your balls off...which ever

[Dizzy28]

I suggest those laws are tantamount to slavery!

Atheist :

There is a reason why there is a right to bear arms in the USA. It's not primarily for personal protection. It's there to make sure that the people would always have the means to standup to and if needed remove a tyrannical government.
.

The actual part of the US constitution with regards to owning arms actually goes like this
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The major reason it was included is because the USA was a young country which fought a war to gets its independence. The empire building aspirations of the British, french etc. meant the US with its vast lands could always be invaded.

You are a bit misguided...carry on.

[MG Man]

and added to outlaw's point, I find yuh wife bess
I deserve de right tuh sit across de road and pelt ah rounds when she outside

And she has the right to walk inside if it bothers her. No legislation required, just common sense.

If however pelting a rounds from across the street not good enough for yuh and yuh decide to cause body harm to her well then she has the right to pull out her firearm and blast away your head or shoot your balls off...which ever

lol which is why I stayin with the birds across the street

[[X]~Outlaw]

^^ LOLZ

Dizzy28 I agree with you. I have however seen people interpret the original reason for it it in both ways.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ a bit?

laws are necessary to ensure that society and life progresses past the terrible actions of a few.

[X]~Outlaw, if there were no laws restricting anything and your neighbor was keeping highly radioactive material that was not properly stored in his yard right next to yours, what would you do?

[[X]~Outlaw]

Well Duane since you have to look for the most ridiculous examples.

If my neighbor was keeping highly radioactive material in his yard we would both bed dead from radiation poisoning before anyone found out about it hence the law would mean jack squat at that point.

For the most part the law is reactive not pro active. The law does not prevent murder, it just tries to punish the murder after the offense.

I agree their should be laws however it has come to a really ridiculous state where to fix the slightest problem laws are past. Most believe that you could legislate all society problems away.

The other problem is legislating morality, e.g. laws against polygamy, drugs etc. I may not be for those things but whose moral compass are you going to use to legislate that to a diverse society?

This is how I've always looked at it. My freedom ends where you're begin. Once a person is not infringing on anther personal freedoms and not causing another bodily harm they should be free to do whatever. In the case where they infringe upon another person freedom or cause them body harm then the other party has a right to protect them self.

[MG Man]

he'd steal it and build a bomb

[[X]~Outlaw]

Then hold the world ransom for one meeeeelllllion dollars!!!! *maniacal laugh* *maniacal laugh*

[MG Man]

so in your world, I can poop in paper bags and heap them on the gap in front your driveway?

[88sins]

All I am hearing in this thread is "I want a gun and I should be able to have one"

There are alot of things that you are denied from owning because it is illegal to do so but you do not suggest those laws are tantamount to slavery.

Apparently reading isn't one of your strong suits, so I'll spell it out for you in simple English text. This isn't strictly about guns. Arms could mean anything, from a big stick to pepper spray to tazers to a sword to firearms. The issue is THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, meaning being legally permitted to keep any item you chose on your person in order to defend yourself from an attacker if the need arises.

And just so you know, firearms are legal in T&T. Have always been since the passage of The Firearms Act Ch 16:01 Act no. 44 of 1970, and in all subsequent amendments. If they were illegal NOBODY OUTSIDE THE POLICE & ARMED FORCES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE AND PULL OUT A PERMIT TO SHOW FOR IT. Illegal is illegal period. That means NOT LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO POSSESS OR ENACT. Not illegal for 99.999% of the population and legal if you own a business or have influence. If it was outright illegal there wouldn't even be an application form for you to buy at the gov't printer on Stanmore Ave. They are only deemed illegal in the absence of a license from the CoP, which qualified law abiding applicants with valid reasons for applying are being refused and delayed form receiving, for what ever vague reasons they may offer.

As other have said, if you don't want the right to bear arms, that's your business. But no one should be allowed to unilaterally deny EVERYBODY the right to defend themselves. But however anti-gun you may be, I'm sure if you could legally, you'd feel a little safer if you & your's could keep at the very least some form of even non lethal protection on your/their person. If not, then you are truly unique.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ you seem upset

[[X]~Outlaw]

Yep and I could do the same...poop for poop isn't my world more fun

[88sins]

Nope, just misunderstood.

[MG Man]

your world sounds shiddy

[[X]~Outlaw]

LOL!

[88sins]

allyuh is tears

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ much better - have a smile!

Nope, just misunderstood.

getting riled up and e-shouting doesn't make you easier to understand

I am all for non-lethal weapons. However I would much rather have all attention be put towards fixing the problems that cause citizens to feel the need to own a gun or any weapon for protection. I think that is the better, more progressive solution.

I am aware that you can legally own a gun in T&T, however I think that arming the citizenry by relaxing the process to get such a license is a bad move and counter productive to the point I made above.

think of the amount of money, effort, headache and terrible aesthetics that burglar proof wrought iron puts us through in T&T. If our country spent that money and effort on preventing or drastically lowering larceny then we would have solved far more for ourselves. Why should we spend more effort on the plaster rather than preventing the sore?

[[X]~Outlaw]

I'm for non-lethal as well. Its a decent compromise that I'm willing to work with.

[PariaMan]

I find if big businessmen can apply for and get licences then why should I not be able to do the same thing.

Is it that my life is worthless than their own?

The same should apply for all.

All life is precious!

[gunsmoke]

Fouucok the big businessman

[AdamB]

I find if big businessmen can apply for and get licences then why should I not be able to do the same thing.

Is it that my life is worthless than their own?

The same should apply for all.

All life is precious!

"Don't believe in excess
Success is to give
Don't believe in riches
But you should see where I live"....U2

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I find if big businessmen can apply for and get licences then why should I not be able to do the same thing.

Is it that my life is worthless than their own?

The same should apply for all.

All life is precious!

maybe because the big businessmen are at a higher risk of being held up, kidnapped, robbed in their business place or elsewhere because of the money they have there?