A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     




     

    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     

     



    What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

     

    Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

    the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

    look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

     




     

    Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

    Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

     

     




     

    Your assumption is that criminals acquire their muntions legally.  Dubious.  With crazies, doesn't matter, as they generally expect to die in the act, so, nothing to prosectue, serialization has done nothing in either of those cases.

    Stolen munitions used in a crime could be traced.  That is not a compelling enough reason.

    Having to register guns is an an infringement, maybe a necessary one.  Registration implies certain things, like having to produce that arm at the request of government.  That's an infringement.

    Registration also implies the ability of the governemnt to check for registration compliance.  So, maybe your house gets broken into.  With registered arms do you have the right to deny the government their desire to check your arms?

    See, the problem is that none of this applies to legal gun owners, but they are the only ones constrained by these recommendations.  Criminals and crazies are not effected.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     




     

    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     

     



    What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

     

    Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

    the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

    look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

     




     

    Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

    Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

     

     




     

    Your assumption is that criminals acquire their muntions legally.  Dubious.  With crazies, doesn't matter, as they generally expect to die in the act, so, nothing to prosectue, serialization has done nothing in either of those cases.

    Stolen munitions used in a crime could be traced.  That is not a compelling enough reason.

    Having to register guns is an an infringement, maybe a necessary one.  Registration implies certain things, like having to produce that arm at the request of government.  That's an infringement.

    Registration also implies the ability of the governemnt to check for registration compliance.  So, maybe your house gets broken into.  With registered arms do you have the right to deny the government their desire to check your arms?

    See, the problem is that none of this applies to legal gun owners, but they are the only ones constrained by these recommendations.  Criminals and crazies are not effected.



    There would certainly be a bullet black market, but all crimininals would be shopping from the same black market pool, which would make illegal ammo more expensive and difficult to obtain, without affecting the supply of legal ammo.  Right now, a criminal has to go to the black market once to get a gun, and never again no matter how many times he uses it.  Under this proposal, the criminal would have to return to the black market with each crime.  Also, manufacturers began putting serial numbers on guns in 1968.  Technology has come a long way since 1968 - I don't doubt that there is a simple way to uniquely identify a bullet that is nearly impossible to file away. 

    I think you're making straw-man arguments - if your house is broken into, why would you not want the police to know if your guns were stolen?  IMO, that's up to you - if you don't report it, why should we care?  The only time you would be asked to produce your firearm is if the ammunition used in a crime traces back to you.  If that concerns you, it's hard to believe your serious about being a responsible gun owner - at the very least a responsible gun owner would want to understand how his/her identity had been used by a criminal to purchase ammo.

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     




     

    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     

     



    What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

     

    Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

    the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

    look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

     




     

    Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

    Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

     

     




     

    Your assumption is that criminals acquire their muntions legally.  Dubious.  With crazies, doesn't matter, as they generally expect to die in the act, so, nothing to prosectue, serialization has done nothing in either of those cases.

    Stolen munitions used in a crime could be traced.  That is not a compelling enough reason.

    Having to register guns is an an infringement, maybe a necessary one.  Registration implies certain things, like having to produce that arm at the request of government.  That's an infringement.

    Registration also implies the ability of the governemnt to check for registration compliance.  So, maybe your house gets broken into.  With registered arms do you have the right to deny the government their desire to check your arms?

    See, the problem is that none of this applies to legal gun owners, but they are the only ones constrained by these recommendations.  Criminals and crazies are not effected.

     



    There would certainly be a bullet black market, but all crimininals would be shopping from the same black market pool, which would make illegal ammo more expensive and difficult to obtain, without affecting the supply of legal ammo.  Right now, a criminal has to go to the black market once to get a gun, and never again no matter how many times he uses it.  Under this proposal, the criminal would have to return to the black market with each crime.  Also, manufacturers began putting serial numbers on guns in 1968.  Technology has come a long way since 1968 - I don't doubt that there is a simple way to uniquely identify a bullet that is nearly impossible to file away. 

     

    I think you're making straw-man arguments - if your house is broken into, why would you not want the police to know if your guns were stolen?  IMO, that's up to you - if you don't report it, why should we care?  The only time you would be asked to produce your firearm is if the ammunition used in a crime traces back to you.  If that concerns you, it's hard to believe your serious about being a responsible gun owner - at the very least a responsible gun owner would want to understand how his/her identity had been used by a criminal to purchase ammo.

     

     



    Your arguments are the strawman.  you constantly expect criminals to act in lawful ways, or to somehow be constrained by a limited black market.  Criminals are not limited by laws, they are limited by beinng caught.  

    Serializing ammo does nothing to change that.

    So, let's do house to house searches in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago first.  THAT will solve some problems for sure.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    But I'm not OK with a registry.

     


    Why not?

    A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

    Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

     

     

     

    Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

    If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".



    Sorry, for the late reply.

    If you saw an earlier post of mine.  I'm OK with being required through a fire arms ID fully vetted; criminal, medical, mental to purchase.  

    You need an ID to buy booze but they don't take your name and what you bought.

    You need medical/mental health signoff to maintain a pilots license

    So a combination of these of OK for guns and ammo.

    Once the government tracks something they can come get it once they change the law, its a slippery slope concern.  So I maintain its none of their business.

    This type gun ID would slow down the movement of guns to the black market as unlicensed people couldn't feed the balck market unless thye broke the law and onece they broke the law they will eventually get caught.  Sting operations would be good for that.

    Yes, the right to own a gun is more important then the right of an unstable person not getting on  a list to preclude a gun ID.

    If you do to a shrink to resolve your mommy issues it should not cause a dangerousness notification unless you talk about causing mommy harm.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Serializing ammo does nothing to change that.

     

    So, let's do house to house searches in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago first.  THAT will solve some problems for sure.

     



    Not house to house searches, nitwit. If ammo is found related to a shooting, the cops go to the last person who registered it.

     

    They get charged with a crime: an unregistered private sale of ammunition.

    Now, perhaps they can name names and cut time off their own charges, which might help find the murderer.

    Or maybe not. Either way, if that is the system and the middleman gets nailed, then it would be much harder for criminals to find middlemen to move legally purchased guns and ammo into the black market.

     

     

     

    Of course, you know this and are just being stupid for a reaction.



    So, I guess you are all for serializing and registering hammers, knives, and clubs?  All of those kill far more people than guns.

    My point on the "unreasonable search" is to show you how free and easy you are with the 2nd amendment, yet see narrowing the 4th amendment as folly.

    Here, read this:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/01/16/are-guns-the-problem-n1488804

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    But I'm not OK with a registry.

     


    Why not?

    A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

    Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

     

     

     

    Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

    If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".

     



    Sorry, for the late reply.

     

    If you saw an earlier post of mine.  I'm OK with being required through a fire arms ID fully vetted; criminal, medical, mental to purchase.  

    You need an ID to buy booze but they don't take your name and what you bought.

    You need medical/mental health signoff to maintain a pilots license

    So a combination of these of OK for guns and ammo.

    Once the government tracks something they can come get it once they change the law, its a slippery slope concern.  So I maintain its none of their business.

    This type gun ID would slow down the movement of guns to the black market as unlicensed people couldn't feed the balck market unless thye broke the law and onece they broke the law they will eventually get caught.  Sting operations would be good for that.

     

     



     

    Ok, but I'm not talking about "government tracking" beyond that minimum: Registering each sale of gun & ammo.

    We don't need searches or harassment. Just the fact hanging over your head that if you're the last registered purchaser of a gun or ammo that ends up at a crime scene, you face criminal charges.

    That would severely cut into the flow of weapons into the black market. Over time, the black market supply would dry up as police seize weapons, as weapons are discarded post-crime, as weapons eventually break down.

    Yes, there is still some government monitoring. But it seems extremely minimal to me compared to the problem (most per capita gun violence on earth) and the importance of the privacy at interest.

     

     

    On that latter point: Unless you are criminally possessing a firearm, the government already knows you have at least one. You must have a permit or at the least an FID card. What, exactly, is threatened if they know not simply that you own a gun, but that it is a 0.38 ruger and that you bought it from Bob on Dec. 10, 2014?

     

     



    Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support.

     

     

    State laws vary from Mass to Say NH the differences are dramatic.  So in Many states the Feds have no idea who owns what.  In those states, buying ammo is simple at Walmart with a valid ID to prove age.  In NH you can get a license to carry for $10.00 by applying at your local City/Town and it must be processed in 14 days.

     

    http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx

     

    Important/Relevant Gun Laws - Massachusetts  RIFLES AND SHOTGUNSHANDGUNS 

    Permit to Purchase FID Required Yes  

    Registration of Firearms* No    

    Licensing of Owner Yes   

    Permit to Carry FID Required Yes

    Important/Relevant Gun Laws - New Hampshire  RIFLES AND SHOTGUNSHANDGUNS 

    Permit to Purchase No   

    Registration of Firearms No   

    Licensing of Owners No  

    Permit to Carry No Yes

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support



    People do not get FID cards or permits to carry if they do not buy a gun. That wouldn't make sense. Unlike a drivers' license, there would literally be no other purpose.

     

    ("Oh, well, what if I spontaneously decide to buy a gun.....better make sure I have a FID card up to date, just in case" ??)

    We're talking about a couple more details beyond the fact that you own a gun. To me, that seems like a pretty tiny sacrifice.

     

     

     Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

     Take your guns? Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

    So.....what is it?

     

     



    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support



    People do not get FID cards or permits to carry if they do not buy a gun. That wouldn't make sense. Unlike a drivers' license, there would literally be no other purpose.

    True in a state like Mass, but not required in NH.   If you want to drive then you get a license even if you live in the city and only rent a Zipcar a few times a year.  If you want to own a gun or for that matter wanted to go to a gun range and rent a gun to shoot I propose having an FID would be a good compromise on the need to enact some legislation.  If you weren't interested in such an activity then you wouldn't get one.

     

    ("Oh, well, what if I spontaneously decide to buy a gun.....better make sure I have a FID card up to date, just in case" ??)

    Yes as proposed per above, otherwise in states like NH go head and make a purchase when ever you want.

    We're talking about a couple more details beyond the fact that you own a gun. To me, that seems like a pretty tiny sacrifice.

     ...but a scarifice all the same; not much of one ion Mass but in other states a slippery slope; .............Live Free or Die.

     

     Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

    It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

    Take your guns?

    Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

    Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

    In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

    So.....what is it?

    I think I explained.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Not everyone who has a FID card or handgun license owns a gun. I have a handgun license but don't own a gun. 



    Case in point.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

     

    It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

    Take your guns?

    Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

    Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

    In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

    So.....what is it?

    I think I explained.

     



    Whoa there. Are we forgetting all our other discussions on the issue?

     

    Heller makes clear: The government cannot take your guns, even if there is "is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings."

    Nevermind that the pendulum did swing, there was a percentage change in voting, and the party whom you fear might take your guns isn't proposing anything of the sort.

     


    So,

    1. You are afraid the government will take your guns, though this would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

    2. You are afraid that if government wanted to take your guns, it wouldn't be able to if all it knew is that you almost certainly have a gun because you have an FID card or permit....

    ....but somehow, government could take your guns if it knew that it was a 0.38 you owned?

     

     

     

     

    What I'm hearing is that even though we have the most gun violence in the world, the most mass shootings in the world, etc etc etc., you would prefer us to remain that way out of night terrors to the effect that government will decide to take your guns and will be able to do so if they know not only that you have a permit, but that you bought a 0.38....   

    If they didn't know that you bought a specific gun, then government couldn't take your guns if it wanted to (nevermind it can't) ????

     


    Come on now, let's be realistic.

     



     

    Look we have varying degrees of gun control which prevent ownership of some types weapons of weapons.  In NH 10,000 people own automatic weapons the highest per capita in the US, while many states don’t allow the ownership of automatic weapons.

     

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/NH-machine-gun-ownership-spikes-.html

     

     

    There are a number of efforts under way to ban certain weapons nationally; automatic, semi automatic, and various high capacity magazines down to 10 or more rounds.  Most of the legislation discussions all say grandfather existing weapons/magazines but ban new manufacture and sale of certain types.  Well if you own a certain type of now banned weapon it only takes another change in the law to say that banned weapons of course need to be taken out of circulation.  That of course (note heavy sarcasm) wouldn’t be an assault on the 2nd Amendment, just a cleanup act of removing already banned weapons from circulation.

     The government has various ways of getting what it wants; legislation, legislation from the bench, executive orders, regulations, and Amendments to the Constitution.  Recently the government legislated ACA without a plurality of support, it was fought by 28 States and SCOTUS resolved it by avoiding the commerce clause challenge and proceeded to answer a question it wasn't asked and then it gave us ACA.  

    The same could happen to go after guns, so I'm not interested in supporting an effort I don't believe in.  So that's the reality I live in.

    It's just a slippery slope, once the citizens give in, each individual take is easier to get. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

     

    It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

    Take your guns?

    Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

    Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

    In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

    So.....what is it?

    I think I explained.

     



    Whoa there. Are we forgetting all our other discussions on the issue?

     

    Heller makes clear: The government cannot take your guns, even if there is "is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings."

    Nevermind that the pendulum did swing, there was a percentage change in voting, and the party whom you fear might take your guns isn't proposing anything of the sort.

     


    So,

    1. You are afraid the government will take your guns, though this would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

    2. You are afraid that if government wanted to take your guns, it wouldn't be able to if all it knew is that you almost certainly have a gun because you have an FID card or permit....

    ....but somehow, government could take your guns if it knew that it was a 0.38 you owned?

     

     

     

     

    What I'm hearing is that even though we have the most gun violence in the world, the most mass shootings in the world, etc etc etc., you would prefer us to remain that way out of night terrors to the effect that government will decide to take your guns and will be able to do so if they know not only that you have a permit, but that you bought a 0.38....   

    If they didn't know that you bought a specific gun, then government couldn't take your guns if it wanted to (nevermind it can't) ????

     


    Come on now, let's be realistic.

     



     

    Look we have varying degrees of gun control which prevent ownership of some types weapons of weapons.  In NH 10,000 people own automatic weapons the highest per capita in the US, while many states don’t allow the ownership of automatic weapons.

     

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/NH-machine-gun-ownership-spikes-.html

     

     

    There are a number of efforts under way to ban certain weapons nationally; automatic, semi automatic, and various high capacity magazines down to 10 or more rounds.  Most of the legislation discussions all say grandfather existing weapons/magazines but ban new manufacture and sale of certain types.  Well if you own a certain type of now banned weapon it only takes another change in the law to say that banned weapons of course need to be taken out of circulation.  That of course (note heavy sarcasm) wouldn’t be an assault on the 2nd Amendment, just a cleanup act of removing already banned weapons from circulation.

     The government has various ways of getting what it wants; legislation, legislation from the bench, executive orders, regulations, and Amendments to the Constitution.  Recently the government legislated ACA without a plurality of support, it was fought by 28 States and SCOTUS resolved it by avoiding the commerce clause challenge and proceeded to answer a question it wasn't asked and then it gave us ACA.  

    The same could happen to go after guns, so I'm not interested in supporting an effort I don't believe in.  So that's the reality I live in.

    It's just a slippery slope, once the citizens give in, each individual take is easier to get. 



    Every law is a possible slippery slope...  The argument goes no where except to reveal that some folks are truly paranoid: the government has a secret plan to disarm the nation!  

    Every time we pass a law to address a social concern someone's rights are clipped while others are often expanded.  I like my right to life and I value it more than your right to possess any deadly weapon that tickles your fancy.  And it is not just me, those kids that were killed and the future kids that will be killed and all the other innocent victims of gun violence deserved or deserve that right to life too.  We are already on a slippery slope in terms of gun violence.  Yet you don't seem to care.  Guns are more important... Property rights are more important than the right to life...

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     



    Every law is a possible slippery slope...  The argument goes no where except to reveal that some folks are truly paranoid: the government has a secret plan to disarm the nation!  

     

    Every time we pass a law to address a social concern someone's rights are clipped while others are often expanded.  I like my right to life and I value it more than your right to possess any deadly weapon that tickles your fancy.  And it is not just me, those kids that were killed and the future kids that will be killed and all the other innocent victims of gun violence deserved or deserve that right to life too.  We are already on a slippery slope in terms of gun violence.  Yet you don't seem to care.  Guns are more important... Property rights are more important than the right to life...



    Point of perspective if you are in the small government self reliance camp.  Every law enacted which restricts your personal rights is a slippery slope, unless you are in the big government nannystate camp.

    I don't think its being paranoid to question laws that restrict Constitutional or individual rights. I don't like the seat belt law nor motorcycle helmet but I use them.  I don't like the idea of infringement on my gun rights whether I have one or not.  My legal use of a gun isn't a problem, its the illegal uses of guns that are problems.

    ...and yes there are those who would disarm the nation like England.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

     

    It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

    Take your guns?

    Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

    Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

    In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

    So.....what is it?

    I think I explained.

     



    Whoa there. Are we forgetting all our other discussions on the issue?

     

    Heller makes clear: The government cannot take your guns, even if there is "is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings."

    Nevermind that the pendulum did swing, there was a percentage change in voting, and the party whom you fear might take your guns isn't proposing anything of the sort.

     


    So,

    1. You are afraid the government will take your guns, though this would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

    2. You are afraid that if government wanted to take your guns, it wouldn't be able to if all it knew is that you almost certainly have a gun because you have an FID card or permit....

    ....but somehow, government could take your guns if it knew that it was a 0.38 you owned?

     

     

     

     

    What I'm hearing is that even though we have the most gun violence in the world, the most mass shootings in the world, etc etc etc., you would prefer us to remain that way out of night terrors to the effect that government will decide to take your guns and will be able to do so if they know not only that you have a permit, but that you bought a 0.38....   

    If they didn't know that you bought a specific gun, then government couldn't take your guns if it wanted to (nevermind it can't) ????

     


    Come on now, let's be realistic.



     We don't have the most violence in the world.  I'm not even sure we have the most gun violence inthe world.  In fact, I would go so far to say that if you factor out the inner city gun violence, the U.S. is an incredibly restrained country, largely due to gun ownership.

    So, given that, why won't you focus on the real problem, inner city gun violence, and leave those of us trying to protect ourselves alone?

    Or, am I being too realistic?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Joe, I understand your slippery slope fears.

    For example, even if I thought that waterboarding was not torture, I might still oppose it on slippery slope grounds.

    What I don't understand is how your slippery slope fears apply to the proposal to give government essentially cumulative information: Not simply that you almost certainly own guns and ammo, but which particular guns.

    I just don't see how this enables government to do anything that it could not already do if it so chose.

    At most it would make it a bit easier to enforce, say, a no-grandfather assault weapons ban that you note. But it's not like it is necessary for the government to carry it out if it so chose. Nevermind that the prior ban grandfathered in already-sold weapons, nevermind that those favoring a ban are in a clear minority, nevermind that nothing Obama proposed even hints at a ban.

    Balance the apparrent non-risk, and the very obviousy real effect on legal guns/ammo going black market that a registry plus criminalization of failure to register would have.....

    ...and I obviously reach a different conclusion.

     

     

    I'm also open to suggestions on mental health, but I think its a very fine line. If you set the bar too low for, say, psychiatrists to report potential threats, then people aren't going to go to a psychiatrist.

    It's like if you required lawyers to disclose it if their client admitted guilt. You'd defeat the whole purpose of having lawyers in the first place.

    So maybe background checks that turn up proof you were committed.... 

    But just how many of the present shooters would have been caught with that? None. At most, these people were described others as a "bit odd." Can we really put that tool in your average person's hands? Report someone you think is a bit odd if you want to see them comitted? No potential for abuse there... 

    Or the soldier with PTSD who shot the seal in the shooting range the other day. He had been in a hospital a couple times. But think from his perspective: If he knows he likes guns and wants to be able to use them, knows he has mental issues from the war, and also knows that if he goes to get help for those issues he won't be able to go to a shooting range anymore....

    ...is he going to go to the hospital? No? And if he doesn't go, aren't his problems more likely to get even worse?

    I think focusing on mental health is not going to help prevent these shootings. Not unless someone comes up with another approach.

    And if you're worried about slippery slopes with a gun/ammo registry, how can you not be on this front?



    I see documentation of transactions a real slippery slope leading to a registry which can be used later to confiscate the next time the law changes.

    Laws requiring the transaction of gun sales to be accomplished by "qualified" say FID holders would be OK; just don't have the transaction registered.  That requirement for an FID alone is a major concession in most states.  Increase the penalty for transfering guns to unauthorized people, use ATF to run untold numbers of sting operations  great, just like checking up on liquor sales to those under age.  I'm all for reasonable mandated training requirements to have an FID, this would be about safety as opposed to using a FID as a registry/control device.

    Yes there is a slippery slope probelm with mental health issues being divulged to big brother to check/update someone's FID status.  Your idea sounds like a start but of course the American Sniper shooting still demonstrates the risk of emotionally damaged people.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     



    Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

    the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

    Let's start with solving this problem.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

     



    Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

     

    the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

    Let's start with solving this problem.



    No.  The problem is that crazies and people who are not crazy misuse the dangerous instrumentality (gun) that is too prevalent in our society.  Other countries which have real gun control have a lower overall homicide rate.  A gun makes killing (homicide, suicides and accidents) much too easy to accomplish.  Let's start solving ALL of the problem: address crazies (and criminals) as part of the problem and the most dangerous of these weapons as another part.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

     



    Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

     

    the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

    Let's start with solving this problem.



    OK - can we start by locking away anybody who won't register his / her gun because it might be needed in a standoff against the US government?

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  

    You don't know that. You really think illegal guns will dry up that quickly? Very naive.

     

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

    Well, first off he received a "general discharge". Second, him belonging to white supremacy groups, while reprehensible, is not something that comes up on a background check. They look at the following:

    • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
    • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 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 committed to a mental institution
    • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
    • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
    • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. 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
    • Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

    I hadn't read anywhere that he was CONVICTED of DUI's. Which is why he passed the bakcground check.  

     




     

    Illegal guns don't have to dry up quickly - just the ammo.  Most of these mass-shooters had stockpiles of thousands of rounds of legally purchased ammo.

    You don't have to believe it will help or not, but are you willing to simply to confirm that you legally own a gun when purchasing ammo, and being registered in a database where the store clerk or online vendor can verify your identity and the legality of the firearm?  That's all it means to you - no new bans, no new hoops to jump through.  Just an inconvenience less intrusive than getting a prescription for anti-biotics.

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share