Gun license / registration -- a sound argument?

[skookerasbil]

By the way.......you have to go back to 1959 to find a time when gun grabbers were more unpopular. IN 2015, its a real fringe position.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

By the way.......you have to go back to 1959 to find a time when gun grabbers were more unpopular. IN 2015, its a real fringe position.

We'll get them, eventually. Not soon however so your deadly toys are safe, for now.

By the time we get them they will probably be worthless BTW. They pretty much are now, except when it comes time to kill yourself. They are still rather effective at that eh?

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way.......you have to go back to 1959 to find a time when gun grabbers were more unpopular. IN 2015, its a real fringe position.

We'll get them, eventually. Not soon however so your deadly toys are safe, for now.

By the time we get them they will probably be worthless BTW. They pretty much are now, except when it comes time to kill yourself. They are still rather effective at that eh?

s0n......100% certainty we'll be choosing up sides waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the fascists make the effort. Second amendment is never going away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the way.......you have to go back to 1959 to find a time when gun grabbers were more unpopular. IN 2015, its a real fringe position.

We'll get them, eventually. Not soon however so your deadly toys are safe, for now.
By the time we get them they will probably be worthless BTW. They pretty much are now, except when it comes time to kill yourself. They are still rather effective at that eh?

s0n......100% certainty we'll be choosing up sides waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the fascists make the effort. Second amendment is never going away.

PMH is trolling you. No need to respond.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PMH is trolling you. No need to respond.

Nope. You asked for an argument, and I gave you one.

 

[skookerasbil]

When 3/4 of the voting public supports gun ownership, the gun grabbers become a non-factor politically.

 

[skookerasbil]

When 3/4 of the voting public supports gun ownership, the gun grabbers become a non-factor politically.

We are not a democracy but the fix for the gun issue is not to knock on your door and ask for them, it's to make sure that you only shoot people we don't give a shit about, like your own family.

s0n.....you're a gun grabber k00k like this guy >>>




Nobody cares about these peoples opinions...........

 

[PaintMyHouse]

s0n......100% certainty we'll be choosing up sides waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the fascists make the effort. Second amendment is never going away.

It goes away when the country does, which isn't that long from now...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When 3/4 of the voting public supports gun ownership, the gun grabbers become a non-factor politically.

We are not a democracy but the fix for the gun issue is not to knock on your door and ask for them, it's to make sure that you only shoot people we don't give a shit about, like your own family.

s0n.....you're a gun grabber k00k like this guy >>>




Nobody cares about these peoples opinions...........

He needs to get his numbers right. Kook as a description works for me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When 3/4 of the voting public supports gun ownership, the gun grabbers become a non-factor politically.

We are not a democracy but the fix for the gun issue is not to knock on your door and ask for them, it's to make sure that you only shoot people we don't give a shit about, like your own family.

s0n.....you're a gun grabber k00k like this guy >>>
Nobody cares about these peoples opinions...........

Like most anti-gun loons, this guy is speaking from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
They refuse to engage in honest discourse about guns because they know they cannot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When 3/4 of the voting public supports gun ownership, the gun grabbers become a non-factor politically.

We are not a democracy but the fix for the gun issue is not to knock on your door and ask for them, it's to make sure that you only shoot people we don't give a shit about, like your own family.

s0n.....you're a gun grabber k00k like this guy >>>
Nobody cares about these peoples opinions...........

Like most anti-gun loons, this guy is speaking from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
They refuse to engage in honest discourse about guns because they know they cannot.

Nothing I say about your deadly toys is irrational, unlike your arguments which boil down to, mostly, but I really, really, really, really love guns, they make me feel like a real man instead of what I am...

 

[Alystyr]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

It isn't, it's just helpful to know who the loons like you are...

 

[Alystyr]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

I liken it as an appeasement toward the Progressives who constantly want new gun legislation.
I figure that this would quiet all but the most rabid.
Besides, it wouldn't indicate who owns guns, just that the license holder has a clean background and can own guns if they so desire. Really no different than what a gun purchaser goes through now, maybe even easier and more secure. This way, they wouldn't know each time a purchase was made by seeing a background request.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

I liken it as an appeasement toward the Progressives who constantly want new gun legislation.

Appeasement never works -- they - regardless of who "threy" are -- always come back for more.
In fact, it is impossible to compromise with the anti-gun side because it is impossible for them to offer anything in return for the portion of your rights they want you to give up.

Besides, it wouldn't indicate who owns guns...

The fact that you have to get the license to buy a gun is , alone, probable cause to assume you have a gun - like a driver's license, why get one if you do not plan to drive?

Unless the state can show it MUST know who has guns, that it is necessary for the state to have that information, there's no way to soundly argue against the claim that licensing is an infringement on the right to arms, in violation of the constitution.

 

[Alystyr]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

I liken it as an appeasement toward the Progressives who constantly want new gun legislation.

Appeasement never works -- they - regardless of who "threy" are -- always come back for more.
In fact, it is impossible to compromise with the anti-gun side because it is impossible for them to offer anything in return for the portion of your rights they want you to give up.

Besides, it wouldn't indicate who owns guns...

The fact that you have to get the license to buy a gun is , alone, probable cause to assume you have a gun - like a driver's license, why get one if you do not plan to drive?

Unless the state can show it MUST know who has guns, that it is necessary for the state to have that information, there's no way to soundly argue against the claim that licensing is an infringement on the right to arms, in violation of the constitution.

You make some valid points, but TBH, I didn't say that I wanted there to be a gun ownership license.
I only said that it could be useful, by streamlining the entire process, and that it would be the only new legislation that I could see myself accepting.
Apologies if I came across differently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can possibly see where a gun ownership license could be useful, but that's as far as I'd go.

Here's an example of one way that it could be done:
To get one, a person would undergo the existing (or even expanded) background check once, pay a nominal (< $10) fee, and have it valid for, say, 4 years. Renewal of a valid license could even skip the background check and be offered at a lower fee.
Anything that would currently prevent a person from purchasing a firearm would result in the license being immediately suspended or revoked if it happens after issuance. When purchasing a firearm, the dealer would only have to run the license (no information retained) to check for revocation. After this, an abbreviated version of form 4473 would be filled out and kept by the dealer, identical to current practice.

Lighter workload for the background check agencies, less hassle for dealers, and no increase in government intrusion.
It could even make it easier to prosecute for illegal possession of a firearm. If a person has a valid license in their name, even if it isn't physically in their possession, then they're good to go. No more difficult than checking to see if their driver's license is valid.
Possession without a valid license would (and should) result in severe penalties, possibly even Federal in nature.

The only thing that the Fed. Gov't. would know about a gun owner without a warranted FFL dealer records check is that a person is clear to own firearms, not how many or of what kind.

Ok... but why is is necessary for the state who know who owns guns?

I liken it as an appeasement toward the Progressives who constantly want new gun legislation.

Appeasement never works -- they - regardless of who "threy" are -- always come back for more.
In fact, it is impossible to compromise with the anti-gun side because it is impossible for them to offer anything in return for the portion of your rights they want you to give up.

Besides, it wouldn't indicate who owns guns...

The fact that you have to get the license to buy a gun is , alone, probable cause to assume you have a gun - like a driver's license, why get one if you do not plan to drive?
Unless the state can show it MUST know who has guns, that it is necessary for the state to have that information, there's no way to soundly argue against the claim that licensing is an infringement on the right to arms, in violation of the constitution.

You make some valid points, but TBH, I didn't say that I wanted there to be a gun ownership license.
I only said that it could be useful, by streamlining the entire process, and that it would be the only new legislation that I could see myself accepting.
Apologies if I came across differently.

No, I understood what you were saying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like this thread began and remained mostly a circle jerk of gun jerks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like this thread began and remained mostly a circle jerk of gun jerks.

Translation:
As per the norm, you know you do not have a sound response to the challenged presented.