Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 32 of 41 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #621
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    We tried that once, in the name of Social Justice. Didn't work out too well.

    Again, on topic, I have to ask.....what other rights are we eager to revoke based on our ideas of "mental illness"? Perhaps those suffering Bi-polar Disorder, PTSD, or even just depression, should have their right to vote removed too? Their right to a fair trail or legal representation. Their right to even engage in free speech.

    Obvious exageration to make a point. I do not believe it's the States role to become a shrink, and start deciding which of us get to have our rights and which don't based on some idea the State has as to whom is safe and whom isn't. For example, I know some here who would claim anyone who believes in God is mentally ill, and others who would claim that belief in individual responsabillity and accountabillity (i.e. less welfare) would mark one as insane (and heartless and perhpas sadistic and psycopathic too) as well.

    I think the best course is one of registration. Like voting, like citizenship, like public protest (or public gatherings), like getting legal representation, all require some form or another of registration with the State.

    I appreciate that gun owners don't like the idea. I appreciate they fear confiscation is next.

    Well, I don't think it would ever get that far, because I truly believe that after the very first gun was confiscated by some future jackbooted Govt. agent, the word would get out, and we'd have a Civil War on our hands.

    In the meanwhile, registartion as detailed above is a very reasonable, very responsible, very logical way of doing business on Guns. And sorry, but if you're unwilling to let the State know you have one, then you're a criminal, same as a voter fraudster, public rioter or any other law breaker, and you should be treated as such. Registration is not confiscation, and your fear is not right enough to permit law breaking of a reasonable mechanic for this issue.
    There is really no slippery slope. We are speaking specifically about the right to possess/keep a deadly weapon. That implies a level of responsibility and accountability. By your argument, everybody should be able to keep a weapon, including ex-convicts, people who have previously committed violent/deadly felonies, and people who are frankly insane.

    Joe Blow has been in and out of hospitals and suffers from severe bipolar disorder. He has enormous difficulty controlling his impulses, cycles into psychotic states in which he becomes grandiose and self-destructive. He is modestly compliant with medications, since he enjoys his manic states. Joe can't hold down a job, lives with his mother, and spends most of his time hanging in the park and shouting at passersby about conspiracies to kill him. Joe can vote just fine, even if it's a write in for Adolf Hitler. Joe can engage free speech, even if it's to mumble about the TV talking to him and telling him the world is about to end. If you think Joe should have a gun, then I have to say all common sense has left the room. But that's America. Let Joe have his gun. Make it a semi-automatic so he can empty the magazine more efficiently. Just what the founders ordered.

  2. #622
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    There is really no slippery slope. We are speaking specifically about the right to possess/keep a deadly weapon. That implies a level of responsibility and accountability. By your argument, everybody should be able to keep a weapon, including ex-convicts, people who have previously committed violent/deadly felonies, and people who are frankly insane.
    Incorrect.

    Someone who has been convicted of a crime has chosen to surrender their rights accross the board by their personal choice of actions. Their action results in imprisonment, they lose the right to vote (in most jurisdictions), they lose the right to publicly gather freely, and yes, the rightfully lose the right to posess firearms as well. In no way do I support a change to this.

    Such a position is a traditional Democrat Party view, that these convicts should get tehir rights back.

    As for insanity. Again, define it specificly, and then tell me who gets to be the arbiter of that definition, who tests every individual on those definitions, who pays for all of that new costs, and what other rights will be also be putting this restriction on? If it's only Guns, they this is not a debate about our rights, it's a debate on a policy desire to ban guns without following the proper process of amending the Constitution to allow it.

    Is my clinical diagnosis of depression at two points in my life, and having been prescribed meds I never took, and my parents history of suicide enough to disqualify me LiL, in your view? Are you willing to include me in the "mentally ill" on this?

    Again, these plans (other than strait-up registration) all punish, often stringly punish, law abiding citizens who have committed no crime, in a false-sense-of-security idea that it will someone cause the insane to not be insane, and criminals to not be criminals.

    Or in current political parlance, it punishes the law abiding 99.99% for the crimes of the 0.01% and the 100% of criminals. I simply do not support that.

  3. #623
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Why the all or nothing approach? If you want to put guns in the hands of rapidly-cycling bipolars and individuals with severe PTSD, or those suffering psychosis, so be it.
    I want functioning members of society to have the option to own a gun. I want insane human beings to be removed from society. The Joe Blow you mentioned in your response to Warfish strikes me as someone who likely ought to be removed from society.


    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Why not let people with macular degeneration drive cars,
    If they want to drive them around on private property i have no issue with it. Also driving is not an explicitly defined constitutional right.

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    or people with bad credit buy houses without restriction?
    I happen to think that should be left entirely up to private lenders.

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    After all, they haven't killed anyone yet in their vehicles, or not been guaranteed to not pay their bills in the future... whole industries have been built on risk assessment and risk avoidance.
    I do not believe the freedoms we enjoy in this country should be compromised for the sake of risk avoidance.

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    This one is a no brainer. Truly. And of course every gun should be registered, and every sale of a gun documented. And yes every gun that is banned by law should be turned in, including those that were sold prior to the law change. Give fair market value and get them out of circulation. Period. If we ban machine guns, there is no sense whatsoever in allowing existing supplies to remain on the streets. That's so plainly illogical, it hurts.
    I happen to agree with you regarding grandfathering in banned items of any kind. But then i don't think any of those weapons should be banned.

  4. #624
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Incorrect.

    Someone who has been convicted of a crime has chosen to surrender their rights accross the board by their personal choice of actions. Their action results in imprisonment, they lose the right to vote (in most jurisdictions), they lose the right to publicly gather freely, and yes, the rightfully lose the right to posess firearms as well. In no way do I support a change to this.

    Such a position is a traditional Democrat Party view, that these convicts should get tehir rights back.

    As for insanity. Again, define it specificly, and then tell me who gets to be the arbiter of that definition, who tests every individual on those definitions, who pays for all of that new costs, and what other rights will be also be putting this restriction on? If it's only Guns, they this is not a debate about our rights, it's a debate on a policy desire to ban guns without following the proper process of amending the Constitution to allow it.

    Is my clinical diagnosis of depression at two points in my life, and having been prescribed meds I never took, and my parents history of suicide enough to disqualify me LiL, in your view? Are you willing to include me in the "mentally ill" on this?

    Again, these plans (other than strait-up registration) all punish, often stringly punish, law abiding citizens who have committed no crime, in a false-sense-of-security idea that it will someone cause the insane to not be insane, and criminals to not be criminals.

    Or in current political parlance, it punishes the law abiding 99.99% for the crimes of the 0.01% and the 100% of criminals. I simply do not support that.
    Re ex-cons, remember they did their time and are now free citizens. Why should they continue to be restricted in their constitutional rights? But they are, as you noted.

    Re the question of your depression, I would suggest that there be some criteria for a threshold re withholding the temproary right to a firearm. Were you psychotically depressed within the past year? Did you make a suicide attempt/gesture? Have you been compliant with treatment and/or medications? Is your mental health provider willing to sign a statement certifying your stability to own a weapon? There are many ways to do this that would make the bar quite high and serve to make it much more difficult for the severely mentally ill from obtaining weapons while they are severely mentally ill. It not a panacea, it's just one more piece in the puzzle of managing the possession of fire arms in our society. I'm not saying or ever did that it will prevent Newtown or Aurora. It may very well reduce the number of successful suicides by gun, which are all to easy to accomplish relative to other methods.

    JMHO. If nothing else, the passive method of total registration would be nice.

  5. #625
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I want functioning members of society to have the option to own a gun. I want insane human beings to be removed from society. The Joe Blow you mentioned in your response to Warfish strikes me as someone who likely ought to be removed from society.



    If they want to drive them around on private property i have no issue with it. Also driving is not an explicitly defined constitutional right.


    I happen to think that should be left entirely up to private lenders.


    I do not believe the freedoms we enjoy in this country should be compromised for the sake of risk avoidance.



    I happen to agree with you regarding grandfathering in banned items of any kind. But then i don't think any of those weapons should be banned.
    Troubel with your first point is that certifiably insane people have the right to liberty until they commit a crime or harm themselves. I'm not arguing for stripping anyone of their personal liberty to live in the community unless the reasons meet current court standards. I AM arguing that such individuals should not be able to legally buy a deadly weapon while they are known to be completely unstable.

    On another point, why do make the assumption that an enumerated right is more potent/more serious than an unenumerated right?

  6. #626
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Re ex-cons, remember they did their time and are now free citizens. Why should they continue to be restricted in their constitutional rights? But they are, as you noted.
    Because "their time" is not only prison time. Their penalty for their actions is ALL of the penalties, not just the single aspect of prison.

    To use another example, your question is akin to asking why someone found guilty of theft would have to do both prison time AND payback of stolen goods.

    Punishment for crime can, and does, include multiple forms. The loss of rights is one form that is included with committed, and being found guilty, of a felony.

    Re the question of your depression, I would suggest that there be some criteria for a threshold re withholding the temproary right to a firearm.
    So now it's "temporary" restrictions?

    Were you psychotically depressed within the past year?
    How do you define that? Who makes that definition?

    (No, I wasn't.)

    Did you make a suicide attempt/gesture?
    Not in the last year. Or do you mean ever? Iif I did, halfheartedly while drunk, when I was 18, does that count now that I'm almost 40?

    Have you been compliant with treatment and/or medications?
    No, I refused the meds at the time. Is that a disqualifier too now, regardless of the effects?

    Is your mental health provider willing to sign a statement certifying your stability to own a weapon?
    I don't have one currently. Am I now required to have one and see one constantly because of a problem I faced at 18?

    It not a panacea, it's just one more piece in the puzzle of managing the possession of fire arms in our society.
    Remind me, were you not strongly against Voter ID cards and ID Checks?

    Hmmm.

    I'm not saying or ever did that it will prevent Newtown or Aurora.
    Then why the massive political push now, as opposed to the day befroe Aurora and Newtown?

    It may very well reduce the number of successful suicides by gun, which are all to easy to accomplish relative to other methods.
    And why should that be something we infringe upon the rights of 99.99% of our citizens to accomplish, given the utter ease and multitude of options available for suicide?

    If nothing else, the passive method of total registration would be nice.
    At least we agree on that.

  7. #627
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Because "their time" is not only prison time. Their penalty for their actions is ALL of the penalties, not just the single aspect of prison.

    To use another example, your question is akin to asking why someone found guilty of theft would have to do both prison time AND payback of stolen goods.

    Punishment for crime can, and does, include multiple forms. The loss of rights is one form that is included with committed, and being found guilty, of a felony.



    So now it's "temporary" restrictions?



    How do you define that? Who makes that definition?

    (No, I wasn't.)



    Not in the last year. Or do you mean ever? Iif I did, halfheartedly while drunk, when I was 18, does that count now that I'm almost 40?



    No, I refused the meds at the time. Is that a disqualifier too now, regardless of the effects?



    I don't have one currently. Am I now required to have one and see one constantly because of a problem I faced at 18?



    Remind me, were you not strongly against Voter ID cards and ID Checks?

    Hmmm.



    Then why the massive political push now, as opposed to the day befroe Aurora and Newtown?



    And why should that be something we infringe upon the rights of 99.99% of our citizens to accomplish, given the utter ease and multitude of options available for suicide?



    At least we agree on that.
    Re convicts, just pointing out that the lifetime restrictions seem a bit harsh from a libertarian perspective. If I commit a felony at the age of 19, should I be banned from a variety of civil rights at 60? I would think that should at least be assessed by someone to allow flexibility.

    I honestly don't remember any strong stance on voter ID's. The issue is so politicized that it's not clear to me whether it should be mandated or not. From a libertarian point of view, why should someone have to go through the indignity of registration for an ID to vote, which is a core right under the Constitution. I could see a slippery slope here... (not really, but that's pretty much how gun rights adovocates tend to argue for THAT right...)

    Never said "permanent." In one of my earlier responses, lost in verbiage, I indicated that this would be time limited. I'm glad you spelled out your situation, although I'm only concerned about the last year in my example, so your behavior at 18 doesn't count. On the other hand, in my learned opinion, you should be restricted from anything above a butterknive for the foreseeable future. I would also suggest that you avoid nail clippers and corkscrews. At the same time, just stop by to pick up your Uzi. It comes with the bonus high capacity magazine.

  8. #628
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Now Here's a good reason for owning a pistol!

    Remember the Gary Larson cartoon, when Bob steps into the elevator at his office and comes between a mother bear and her cub? Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes... somehow a crutch doesn't cut it.

    CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (Reuters) - A Massachusetts man and his nephew were attacked by a bobcat that had slipped into the man's garage before they captured and shot the 30-pound animal.
    Roger Mundell Jr. said the bobcat hissed then leaped about eight feet and pounced on him after he entered the garage in Brookfield, a town about an hour outside of Boston where bobcats are occasionally spotted but rarely attack people.
    The animal, believed to be rabid, bit Mundell repeatedly on the face and scratched his shoulders during Sunday's attack. Mundell was eventually able to free himself by removing his jacket, he said.
    Mundell then ran out of the garage, shutting a door behind him, but the cat escaped through another partially opened door and confronted his wife and 15-year-old nephew, who were outside, Mundell said.
    The bobcat bit the nephew on the forearm until Mundell pulled the animal off him and they pinned it to the ground, beating it with a metal crutch. Mundell's wife then got a pistol from the house and they shot it.

  9. #629
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some thoughts, and some what I believe is some accurate info.

    It has been mentioned here that mentally ill folks should not be able to buy or posess fire arms. also the topic of registration of firearms.

    Lets start with who are legally able to purchase or posses firearms.

    From the ATFE web site.
    Q: Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?
    Yes, a person who —

    Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
    Is a fugitive from justice;
    Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
    Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
    Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
    Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
    Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
    Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
    Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
    A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

    Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
    So crazy people are already ineligible to posses firearms if they have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institiution.

    Maybe we need to work harder on getting mentally ill adjudicated or committed and also make sure they are registered in the FBI data base that is used in back ground checks when purchasing guns.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regards to gun registration and machine guns.

    I stated earlier in this thread that there is no gun registration in the US. in general this is true for most common firearms.

    However there are some types of weapons that do require registration, such as short barreled rifles, short barreled shot guns, silencers, and machine guns. These types of firearms (and many others) are refered to as NFA firearms.
    There is also what are known as Destructive Devices. Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

    NFA categories have been modified by laws passed by Congress, rulings by the Department of the Treasury and regulations promulgated by the enforcement agency assigned to firearms known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or BATFE.

    To purchase a NFA firearm one must get a signature from there local sherrriff or police chief, submit a photo, submit fingerprints, and undergo an extensive back ground check, and pay a tax.

    In 1986 the import or sale of new machine guns was banned, the existing machine guns remain legal. Thus causing the price of a full auto M16 to rise to between $11,000- $18,000.

    Class III weapons dealers may produce machine guns, but they can only sell them to the government, like the Army, or police, Bureau of Education, etc. The cost of a new full auto M16 to a government agency is $600-$1,000.

    Not that I am up for further gun registration, I would like to point out that by reclassifying certain firearms as NFA firearms, may be a way restrict some of the guns folks are *****ing about without a full scale registration on all US firearms.
    Last edited by gunnails; 01-08-2013 at 02:14 PM.

  10. #630
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I understand? Felons and people considered mentally ill, may petition to have there gun rights restored through the courts. Many have done so.

  11. #631
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Remember the Gary Larson cartoon, when Bob steps into the elevator at his office and comes between a mother bear and her cub? Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes... somehow a crutch doesn't cut it.

    CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (Reuters) - A Massachusetts man and his nephew were attacked by a bobcat that had slipped into the man's garage before they captured and shot the 30-pound animal.
    Roger Mundell Jr. said the bobcat hissed then leaped about eight feet and pounced on him after he entered the garage in Brookfield, a town about an hour outside of Boston where bobcats are occasionally spotted but rarely attack people.
    The animal, believed to be rabid, bit Mundell repeatedly on the face and scratched his shoulders during Sunday's attack. Mundell was eventually able to free himself by removing his jacket, he said.
    Mundell then ran out of the garage, shutting a door behind him, but the cat escaped through another partially opened door and confronted his wife and 15-year-old nephew, who were outside, Mundell said.
    The bobcat bit the nephew on the forearm until Mundell pulled the animal off him and they pinned it to the ground, beating it with a metal crutch. Mundell's wife then got a pistol from the house and they shot it.
    ===============================================

    What an entirely horrific experience for the Mundell's.

  12. #632
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just wanted to point out that all this jibber jabber we hear about banning assault rifles etc as a way to prevent murder is basically nonsense. The anti-gun people can rail on all day about the evils of assault rifles. There is one problem though. On average only 300 murders a year are committed with rifles, assault or otherwise. Thats right, in a country of 400 million people, with 350Million guns in circulation we had 300 or so murders committed by rifle. If we withered it down to just "assault rifles" the numbers would be drastically lower.

    By contrast in Chicago, a gun free zone, they have around 500 murders per year. Murders in that one city are more than all of the rifle murders in the country.

    My point? The people here railing for gun control are not doing so to prevent future tragedies. They are here to promote their political agenda of getting guns out of peoples hands period. If they really cared about preventing tragedies they would look at the common thread across 90+% of the mass murder tragedies. That is the use of psychotropic drugs. Anti-depressants/anti psychotics etc are known to have the side effect of causing violent behavior. Many list as a "side effect" suicidal tendencies" or "violent inclinations". The politicians are looking out for pharmaceutical co's by deflecting blame to guns.

  13. #633
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I just wanted to point out that all this jibber jabber we hear about banning assault rifles etc as a way to prevent murder is basically nonsense. The anti-gun people can rail on all day about the evils of assault rifles. There is one problem though. On average only 300 murders a year are committed with rifles, assault or otherwise. Thats right, in a country of 400 million people, with 350Million guns in circulation we had 300 or so murders committed by rifle. If we withered it down to just "assault rifles" the numbers would be drastically lower.

    By contrast in Chicago, a gun free zone, they have around 500 murders per year. Murders in that one city are more than all of the rifle murders in the country.

    My point? The people here railing for gun control are not doing so to prevent future tragedies. They are here to promote their political agenda of getting guns out of peoples hands period. If they really cared about preventing tragedies they would look at the common thread across 90+% of the mass murder tragedies. That is the use of psychotropic drugs. Anti-depressants/anti psychotics etc are known to have the side effect of causing violent behavior. Many list as a "side effect" suicidal tendencies" or "violent inclinations". The politicians are looking out for pharmaceutical co's by deflecting blame to guns.
    ===============================================

    I agree that most of this gun control talk is nonsense. People do not want to look at the root cause for the crimes and instead focus on the gun to the point where they believe the gun is responsible and not the criminal.

    People look at these mass shooting events, are understandably shocked and horrified and then respond emotionally rather then logically to the overall situation.

    Some people refuse to acknowledge the tremendous amount of good that guns are responsible for.

    SCOTUS say's that we as individuals are responsible for are own safety.

    By all accounts there are over 800,000 to 1,500,000 instances of people stopping a crime or preventing violent crime with a firearm every year. Compare that number to the 11,000 gun murders every year in the US.

    The explosion in gun ownership over the past 20 years coincides with a drop in violent crime in the US of over 50%.

    The US has lower rate of violent crime per capita then the UK by 50%.

    Over 75% of the violent crime in the US is committed in large cities and gun free zones, places where guns are heavily controlled.
    Last edited by gunnails; 01-08-2013 at 03:01 PM.

  14. #634
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ===============================================

    I agree that most of this gun control talk is nonsense. People do not want to look at the root cause for the crimes and instead focus on the gun to the point where they believe the gun is responsible and not the criminal.

    People look at these mass shooting events, are understandably shocked and horrified and then respond emotionally rather then logically to the overall situation.

    Some people refuse to acknowledge the tremendous amount of good that guns are responsible for.

    SCOTUS say's that we as individuals are responsible for are own safety.

    By all accounts there are over 800,000 to 1,500,000 instances of people stopping a crime or preventing violent crime with a firearm every year. Compare that number to the 11,000 gun murders every year in the US.

    The explosion in gun ownership over the past 20 years coincides with a drop in violent crime in the US of over 50%.

    The US has lower rate of violent crime per capita then the UK by 50%.

    Over 75% of the violent crime in the US is committed in large cities and gun free zones, places where guns are heavily controlled.
    Exactly. I'd like to know from the gun control people exactly how many of the 300 per year murders committed with a rifle would be reduced by enacting new gun control laws. Next, how much time and effort and money should be spent in a country of 400Million people to reduce the number of murders by a percentage point or two. Finally is there a better way to focus this time and money to be put to better use than legislating something which will have no real effect on actually reducing murders or preventing tragedies?

  15. #635
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,170
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Owning and operating a car is not a right.
    Not in the sense of "if you do not have one, one will be provided to you"

    But in the sense that if you have one, it cannot simply be taken away from you, nor you prevented from operating it, arbitrarily and capriciously? Absolutely.

    Yes you do. To vote you must register to do so. To have a public gathering, you are (in almost every jurisdiction) required to get a permit. Both work along a similar line to a "licence" to engage int he activity.
    Registration is not the same thing as licensure; there is no test to pass, no requirement other than constitutional eligibility. And permitting is both irrelevant (I can stand on a street corner by myself and say whatever I want without a permit/license) and makes my point (that reasonable restrictions on rights are allowed).


    I reject wholesale your idea of "reasonable" being a mandatory costly private-sector and lobbyist profiting "insurance" foisted on the 99.9999% of legal gun owners, due to the crimes committed by the law breakers and 0.000000000001% of gun owners who engage in mass shooting events.
    Yeah, I got that. Can you explain why you are OK with a "mandatory costly private-sector and lobbyist profiting 'insurance' foisted" on the 78% of drivers who never get into accidents on account of the poor driving of the 22% who have?

    First, you assume I do not also support other limitations/definitions. I do, and have said so repeatedly. Clearly I am not supporting private ownership of M1 abrams Tanks or Hellfire Missiles. The "line" is a different debate than the one being had here.
    I never assumed anything of the sort, and I know you're a reasonable guy. What I'm saying is that the logic of your argument, as I see it, applies equally to attacking licensure requirements.

    Second, a de facto ban or a de facto "poll tax" of insurance to engage in your rights when you've broken no law is not regulation, it's a ban and it's unconstitutional.
    Except it's not a poll tax and it's not unconstitutional, any more than requiring permit application fees and background check fees is. Guns are not free; there is a cost of ownership. Given that, an increase in costs isn't a constitutional outrage, IMO.

    You would not require every public speaker to have public speaking insurance, even though teh very act of public speaking can be far more damaging and dangerous that a single gun. It can incite a riot, cause revolution, result in mass harm to individuals and property, etc.
    Sure. But you can require application fees and insurance for damage to property from organizations who want to have a rally on public property.

    Again, if you support a ban, say so, don't weasel around the edges dishonestly. Say you want to ban private ownership of guns, or to revoke the right to own them, and then follow the proper procedure of amending the Constitution to do so. Just like they (wrongfully) did with alcohol.
    I don't support a ban on all guns, and the assumption that anyone who proposes any measure of gun regulation beyond what is currently on the books must really secretly want to ban guns is as ludicrous as suggesting anyone who is against new gun control measures thinks guns should be entirely unregulated.

  16. #636
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry my friend, but I'm not going to point-by-point with someone who is supportive of a State mandated "liabillity" insurance on one (any one) of our Constitutional Rights, the same way I reject wholesale the idea of the State deciding how much of our rights we're entitled to based on how "sane" it thinks we are.

    Nor am I going to argue a flatly baseless (IMO) Car vs. Firearm argument, when one is a guaranteed Constitutional Right, and one is nothing of the kind.

    You want to punish, fiscally, law abiding rights-wielding people. If it were any other right, you'd be the first to denounce such an idea. As a Democrat would say it, you want to protect the law breaking 0.01% by punishing the 99.99%. How many of the 500 odd murders in Chicago were by legally owned guns legal owners, do you think?

    I reject "solutions" that involve wholesale mass-punishing the innocent for the crimes of a statistically insignifigant group (mass shooters) in order to placate people who don't "feel safe" as long as any guns exist in private hands.

    I also reject, wholesale, the idea that the solution to the problem of gun violence has anything to do with the guns themselves, and not the individuals firing them.

    I'm happy to limit the right to reasonable gun types (non-fullauto handguns, rifiles, shotguns) and to mandate registration in a non-public Federal Database to be used as detailed above. These are "reasonable" limits that do not infringe upon the right to bear personal firearm, nor unduly burden law abiding citizens for the crimes of the law breaking.

    Beyond that, agree to disagree.

    /chuckle, imagaine if anyone suggested individuals had to pay a state mandated "just in case legal fee" for possible, could happen, liabillity in case they might one day need a Public Defender, lol. Too funny.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-08-2013 at 04:23 PM.

  17. #637
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    Some thoughts, and some what I believe is some accurate info.

    It has been mentioned here that mentally ill folks should not be able to buy or posess fire arms. also the topic of registration of firearms.

    Lets start with who are legally able to purchase or posses firearms.

    From the ATFE web site.


    So crazy people are already ineligible to posses firearms if they have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institiution.

    Maybe we need to work harder on getting mentally ill adjudicated or committed and also make sure they are registered in the FBI data base that is used in back ground checks when purchasing guns.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regards to gun registration and machine guns.

    I stated earlier in this thread that there is no gun registration in the US. in general this is true for most common firearms.

    However there are some types of weapons that do require registration, such as short barreled rifles, short barreled shot guns, silencers, and machine guns. These types of firearms (and many others) are refered to as NFA firearms.
    There is also what are known as Destructive Devices. Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

    NFA categories have been modified by laws passed by Congress, rulings by the Department of the Treasury and regulations promulgated by the enforcement agency assigned to firearms known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or BATFE.

    To purchase a NFA firearm one must get a signature from there local sherrriff or police chief, submit a photo, submit fingerprints, and undergo an extensive back ground check, and pay a tax.

    In 1986 the import or sale of new machine guns was banned, the existing machine guns remain legal. Thus causing the price of a full auto M16 to rise to between $11,000- $18,000.

    Class III weapons dealers may produce machine guns, but they can only sell them to the government, like the Army, or police, Bureau of Education, etc. The cost of a new full auto M16 to a government agency is $600-$1,000.

    Not that I am up for further gun registration, I would like to point out that by reclassifying certain firearms as NFA firearms, may be a way restrict some of the guns folks are *****ing about without a full scale registration on all US firearms.
    Nah, that's not what we've been debating. Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution is an inmate, not on the street. That doesn't help us with all the unstable characters on the streets expressing their rights. Mentally defective usually refers to the developmentally disabled. But Warfish is going to have to put down his butter knife and figure out how all these categories of people are being deprived of their constitutional rights even now. My big concern is that this is still a very unregulated market re guns. I think there should be a full scale registration. We do it for automobiles, why not guns?

  18. #638
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Nah, that's not what we've been debating. Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution is an inmate, not on the street. That doesn't help us with all the unstable characters on the streets expressing their rights. Mentally defective usually refers to the developmentally disabled. But Warfish is going to have to put down his butter knife and figure out how all these categories of people are being deprived of their constitutional rights even now. My big concern is that this is still a very unregulated market re guns. I think there should be a full scale registration. We do it for automobiles, why not guns?
    ================================================
    Help me out here.

    The laws says has been adjudicated or been in a mental hospital.

    Would it be safe to assume that these adjudicated or committed individuals most often return to the streets so to speak?

    How difficult is it to have someone adjudicated or committed?

    If someone has been adjudicated or committed, is there a likely chance they can get better to the extent that they can be "normal" without meds.

    I am trying to figure someway we can flag/recognize/treat/prevent the individuals that reasonable men would consider dangerous before they implode. Any thoughts?

    I consider driving a privilege, and do not agree with registering all guns, you don't. That's OK, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are? I appreciate that we can try and discuss this and try to as a society find reasonable solutions.

  19. #639
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    People who want to go shoot up schools will always be able to do so I think. You can try to limit the number of lives they can take, I guess, by banning all semi-auto weapons and other restrictions, but you can't stop it entirely.

    More guns isn't the answer. A full-on ban isn't going to happen, and isn't the answer either. Surely a psycho that wants a gun will get one.

    Maybe all guns should have to have those palm-print ID's where only users whose print is registered can fire it? That way you couldn't sell a gun without changing it, there would be little incentive to steal one, and any tossed murder weapon could be traced back to the murderer. What's the downside? I guess it would be converting or changing out current guns, which, due to the long, long shelf life of gins, would never be complete. But to the law-abiding user, I wouldn't think there would be much downside.

  20. #640
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    ....by banning all semi-auto weapons and other restrictions....
    So the only legal guns would be single-action revolvers and single-shot/bolt-action rifiles and shotguns, and muzzle-loading firearms?

    All other weapons are classed as "Semi-Automatic", i.e. capable of firing one shot per trigger depression without other action being required.

    I like your second idea, technology should be something we look at in terms of balancing the right to own, with a responsible way of limiting theft/abuse/misuse by individuals who are not the owner or an owners duly recognized loved one.

    Sci Fi Dream: DNA Scanner in the grip that either activates or deactivates the firing mechanism based on the DNA matching one of the "approved" DNA's programmed into the gun as "authorized" users.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us