Anti gun legislation

[Wyowanderer]

Are you seriously suggesting tha we should allow children, mentally challenged / unstable people, and criminals to own guns? They are not forbade by the Constitution, nor are the states' rights to enact laws to regulate ownership (like it or not). .

Shall we require a test to make sure you're "qualified" to use your freedom of assembly, religion or the press as well? Of course not; but none of those issues scare people to the degree that firearms do.
The answer to your question is no; but do we disallow crazy people to exercise the 1A? Many more have died from religion than from guns.

But this is a diversion; some here advocate a "test" on law abiding, sane people for the "common good". THAT'S what I object to. It ALREADY unlawful for the mentally deranged to own firearms.

 

[Wyowanderer]

OK, I can see why you don't like the word control. We'll use governance. We choose how we wish to be governed. Meaning we decide on which laws we want our representative legislatures to pass or not. You only control (edit: oops, excuse me) ahem, govern yourself within those confines if you're a law abiding citizen.
I really don't want to comb back through nearly 300 posts to find these types of comments. But, as you could expect, they're in here. Yes, "tired" as in worn out.

You're using semantics now. I'll take you at you original post, as you original words reveal much.
Didn't a wise man once say that "government governs best that governs least"?
That's probably "tired" as well, even if some don't want to hear it.

 

[xtatik]

That doesn't mean it will STAY infringed. You couldn't own a pistol in DC until recently, because the Supreme Court struck down a bad law.
Just because the 2A has been infringed doesn't make it okay OR permanent.

Really, you mean I might have a chance at getting that SAM missile? Dude, don't tease me like this. You know, I was just thinking it would be great to get my 2 year old niece a 1911. You let me know when these wise and wonderful changes take place, mmmmkay.






Obviously, I'm being facetious (you may call it something else) and I agree with the change in D.C. but, there are some infringements that won't change.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Yep. Make them titled entities that require legal documentation for transfer of ownership.

There are criminals that buy guns all too easily from law abiding citizens under the current set of laws. I want that to stop. Legal transfer, background check for every transfer. No more selling a gun to the guy down the street because he seems like a nice enough guy. I know this is already "illegal." Make it have teeth.



Please elaborate.

Reread your history; how do you think guns were confiscated in Australia, England, and California? Registration, THEN confiscation.
Your plan for transfer won't affect criminals, either; It WILL make it easier for the government to relieve the populace of its weapons. See, criminals don't follow the law as it is. Only the law abiding do.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Gun laws have nothing to do with common sense; gun laws are about incrementalism and little else.

Its ALREADY unlawful for the mentally deranged to own firearms.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but your earlier statements pertaining to the 2nd amendment protecting EVERY individual's rights to arm themselves and the statements above seem contradictory.

Not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out the fact that dealing in absolutes ALWAYS produces undesirable results, and I believe that our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this, so they provided the means for governmental organizations (state in particular) to regulate as deemed appropriate while protecting the basic right of ownership. On other words, they did not write a law in stone that protects a weapons free for all in their fledgling country.

 

[xtatik]

You're using semantics now. I'll take you at you original post, as you original words reveal much.
Didn't a wise man once say that "government governs best that governs least"?
That's probably "tired" as well, even if some don't want to hear it.

No, that's not tired. But, it's also what we're talking about. We're talking about avoiding a bunch of non-sensical laws that govern guns and instead were talking about ways to govern people who shouldn't have them in the first place.

as you original words reveal much.

:snorkel:

 

[xtatik]

See, criminals don't follow the law as it is. Only the law abiding do.

Yeah, sure, right up until the minute they don't...as in the case of law abiding citizen Jared Loughner.
(Actually, you can insert any name you'd like here. Sadly, there are plenty to choose from.)

 

[xtatik]

BTW, just to inject a little levity here. Does anyone else think Loughner's mugshot resembles a young Uncle Fester?

 

[xtatik]

Shall we require a test to make sure you're "qualified" to use your freedom of assembly, religion or the press as well? Of course not; but none of those issues scare people to the degree that firearms do.
The answer to your question is no; but do we disallow crazy people to exercise the 1A? Many more have died from religion than from guns.

But this is a diversion; some here advocate a "test" on law abiding, sane people for the "common good". THAT'S what I object to. It ALREADY unlawful for the mentally deranged to own firearms.

Also addressed in post #119. There are restrictions or infringements on nearly all Amendments. There are tons of laws that work within the framework of those Amendments.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Reread your history; how do you think guns were confiscated in Australia, England, and California? Registration, THEN confiscation.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I worry that the government is going to confiscate my car so I can't hurt anyone with it... how else should firearms be regulated? If they are not, then how can they possibly be kept out of criminals hands?

I'll admit that I don't know the history of gun legislation in Australia and England, but I hardly think that California was disarmed by an evil government hell bent on destruction, rather a liberal population with an underfunded legal system and people who fear guns rather then the people who weild them.

See, criminals don't follow the law as it is. Only the law abiding do.

I think the first few dozen posts said that quite clearly.

I believe that law abiding citizens should have nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Please explain to me why additional training or screening is infringing on the right to own a firearm if we accept the fact, as you eluded to earlier, that certain people should not have guns (such as children, mentally impaired or disturbed, and criminals)?

 

[fingas]

Also addressed in post #119. There are restrictions or infringements on nearly all Amendments. There are tons of laws that work within the framework of those Amendments.

And almost everyone of them is a law against actual damages caused to others or to prevent infringing on others rights. The same already exists with guns. Murder is illegal and almost any crime committed with a firearm carries higher sentences. None of them require tests or qualifications to use.

 

[keezer37]

BTW, just to inject a little levity here. Does anyone else think Loughner's mugshot resembles a young Uncle Fester?

Finally, something original and thought provoking.






Well, I liked it.

 

[dwh]

How about a Black Belt in Gunnery?

If you've put in the time (years) and earned your Black Belt, you can carry whatever the hell you want. Concealed handgun, assault rifle - whatever floats your boat.



We could do it by standard martial arts belt ranks:


White - has to pass written/oral safety test to advance.

Orange - BB gun, must demonstrate practical expertise in safety and handling to advance.

Yellow - pellet gun, must demonstrate expertise in marksmanship to advance.

Green - single shot .22 rifle or pistol, single shot 410 shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in powder cartridge knowledge, handling and safety, as well as cleaning and maintenance of powder guns to advance.

Blue - revolver, .32 or less, bolt action or lever action .22 rifle, 20ga. over/under shotgun, must demonstrate expertise in mechanical actions as well as safely clearing jams to advance. Highest rank that can be approved by a single Black Belt.

Purple - revolver any size, any size bolt, lever or pump action rifle, any single, double or pump action shotgun. MILESTONE: Demonstrated expertise in all basics. Eligible to instruct in basics under supervision of Black Belt. Must log 250 hours as basics instructor and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Brown - semi-auto handguns rifles, shotguns, 10 round magazine max, must demonstrate expertise in semi-automatic repeating actions, and also weapon control, safety and accuracy in single, timed and rapid fire WHILE UNDER STRESS, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance. MILESTONE: If 21 years of age, an carry, but NOT concealed.

Red - semi-auto, no magazine limit, MILESTONE: CCW. Must log 250 hours as intermediate instructor under the supervision of a Black Belt, and pass a review committee of Black Belts to advance.

Black - FULL AUTO rifle, pistol, shotgun, no magazine limit. MILESTONE: Eligible to be licensed as instructor. Must pass a peer review committee of higher rank Black Belts to advance.

2nd Black - sub-machine guns.
3rd Black - machine guns.
etc.


This scheme, A) does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment, B) insures adequate training, C) places the decision about who is responsible enough in the hands of others who are trusted at that level.

Perfect? Of course not. But a lot better. I mean seriously, how often do you see a news story about a Black Belt running wild? It takes dedication to reach that level, and if you are a nutcase, your Sensei, Sifu or Gunny is going to notice it while teaching you for a couple of years. This also avoids the slippery slope of creating a class of people who have been declared incompetent by some damned personality test.

So let's make Gunnery into a REAL martial art, get it recognized and sanctioned, and get the NRA to lobby the legislators to place the decision about who is qualified into the hands of the qualified.

 

[keezer37]

etc.

Hey, I was properly trained.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Really, you mean I might have a chance at getting that SAM missile? Dude, don't tease me like this. You know, I was just thinking it would be great to get my 2 year old niece a 1911. You let me know when these wise and wonderful changes take place, mmmmkay.






Obviously, I'm being facetious (you may call it something else) and I agree with the change in D.C. but, there are some infringements that won't change.

In addition, you're adding nothing to the debate.