Honest and open debate on gun control

[MikeK]

Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.

My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem? I don't think I'm suggesting anything as stupidly counterproductive as are magazine-capacity laws. All I'm suggesting is a law that says if you don't know how to handle a gun you wish to own, learn how first.

What's wrong with that?

 

[RKMBrown]

Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.

My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem? I don't think I'm suggesting anything as stupidly counterproductive as are magazine-capacity laws. All I'm suggesting is a law that says if you don't know how to handle a gun you wish to own, learn how first.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Bonus, that goes with the goal of the 2nd amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.

My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem? I don't think I'm suggesting anything as stupidly counterproductive as are magazine-capacity laws. All I'm suggesting is a law that says if you don't know how to handle a gun you wish to own, learn how first.

What's wrong with that?

if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...

Look....we know how the gun grabbers think...you think you are clever....you think it is a small thing to require......gun grabbers don't...they will slowly ratchet up the requirements to the point they are impossible to met.....


and we aren't making things up....this is how it happens in foreign countries......they have months long training courses and regulations on using guns that make it impossible for everyone but the wealthiest to have the time and money to pass...

Denmark, in one story I have on the ease that criminals get guns in their country, the police there say you have to know over 1000 pages of information to safely operate a hunting rifle in Denmark....

so no.....there is no Ned to require that of gun owners, especially with YouTube....you can learn how to operate any gun you want on your own time for free and without any permission from the government...

 

[2aguy]

You guys think it is only "common sense" to require training...gun grabbers see it as a way to deny ownership....we know how they think and what they want.....no fucking way.....



Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard but terrorists have little trouble - The Washington Post


Hunting rifles are legally available only to those with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.

“There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.

“It’s very easy to get such a weapon,” said Hans Jorgen Bonnichsen, a former operations director for the Danish security service PET. “It’s not only a problem for Denmark. It’s a problem for all of Europe.”

So.....no fucking way.....

 

[Andylusion]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on. No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost. You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check. Done.

Most guns used by criminals, are sold on the street or by black market gun sellers. Most criminals are not driving around to garage sales, looking for guns.

 

[danielpalos]

You guys think it is only "common sense" to require training...gun grabbers see it as a way to deny ownership....we know how they think and what they want.....no fucking way.....



Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard but terrorists have little trouble - The Washington Post


Hunting rifles are legally available only to those with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.

“There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.

“It’s very easy to get such a weapon,” said Hans Jorgen Bonnichsen, a former operations director for the Danish security service PET. “It’s not only a problem for Denmark. It’s a problem for all of Europe.”

So.....no fucking way.....

What if gun lovers merely are sent to help build better aqueducts and better roads, as a form of alternative sentencing should they have to "muster to splain themselves" before the Judicature.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.”

In fact, totalitarian police state methods would fail to realize that goal.

“And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?”

False comparison fallacy, there is a fundamental right to possess firearms, there is no right to drive a car.

Moreover, a requirement to demonstrate one’s competence to handle guns is un-Constitutional because it manifests as an undue burden on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, there’s no objective, documented evidence in support, and is devoid of a proper legislative end.

 

[2aguy]

“My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.”

In fact, totalitarian police state methods would fail to realize that goal.

“And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?”

False comparison fallacy, there is a fundamental right to possess firearms, there is no right to drive a car.

Moreover, a requirement to demonstrate one’s competence to handle guns is un-Constitutional because it manifests as an undue burden on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, there’s no objective, documented evidence in support, and is devoid of a proper legislative end.

Did yo stop drinking to day clayton?....you are making sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All of which are intended to make the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms too expensive to exercise.
This infringes upon the right to keeps and bear arms as it would if enacted over the exercise of any right.
So does any ban on the sales of new guns.
Fail.
Criminals will also, as you admit, still get guns. Fail.

As I have "repeatedly" explained to you congress is allowed to tax the HELL out of us...

But not under the effort of trying to limit the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, because those protections, found in various amendments, amend the power to tax.
You refuse to understand this. Not sure why.

Nothing short of completely stopping you from exercising your rights will be considered "infringing" by congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS.

This is of course, a lie, with no substance whatsoever behind it.

Not any more they can now tax you for your right to health care. They can tax you for ANY EFFING REASON WHATSOEVER NOW.

But not under the effort of trying to limit the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, because those protections, found in various amendments, amend the power to tax.
You refuse to understand this. Not sure why.

Under the effort of trying? Huh?

Yes. The government has the power to tax; the power to tax does not extend to taxation intended to restrict the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.
That is, the state cannot constitutionally levy a $5000 tax on abortions in order to limit the number of women to choose to have one.
You refuse to understand this. Not sure why.

 

[MikeK]

if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...

Suppose the decision were made to require such a basic competence test, and suppose you are appointed to design the program, do you think you could adequately prevent the kind of manipulation you now are anticipating?

If you can't, I can. And I'm sure there are many who could do a much better job than I. The point being, it can be done. And quite easily.

 

[2aguy]

if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...

Suppose the decision were made to require such a basic competence test, and suppose you are appointed to design the program, do you think you could adequately prevent the kind of manipulation you now are anticipating?

If you can't, I can. And I'm sure there are many who could do a much better job than I. The point being, it can be done. And quite easily.

[/QUOTE]

No you can't....no one can because we don't live forever. They just want it set up, no matter how weak and benign it is.....just get it started, because they can grow it as large as they want later....

Each accidental death will be followed with demands for greater levels of training....every shooting they will sneak more pages or required training into any gun control bill they can push...and they will sneak more requirements into any other bill they can sneak them in...

We know how they think, the tactics they will use and what their goal is....

No fucking way....

So no fucking way.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.

My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

Then it does not soundly address the OP. Thank you.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding?

it is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inhere to same; as such, it is an infringement no more constitutional than requiring voters to prove they can read before allowing them to vote or that journalists are fluent in the subject matter before the can report the news.

Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive....

Driving isn't a right and isn't protected by the constitution. Apples oranges.

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem?

If the dealer himself wants to do that, I have no issue -- if I don't like it I can go to another dealer.
If the state requires him to do so, then it violates the constitution.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

No you can't....no one can because we don't live forever. They just want it set up, no matter how weak and benign it is.....just get it started, because they can grow it as large as they want later....

[...]

What you obviously do not understand is the means by which laws are subject to later modification is either deliberate or negligent failure of their authors to impose simple preventive safeguards, thus leaving a "back door" open. In the example I am citing an effective safeguard may be imposed with a very simple, one sentence introductory paragraph, to read:

No change, alteration, addition, reduction, adjustment or modification to this directive may be applied or officially proposed at any time in the future, and for any reason, without full approval of the GOA and the NRA.

The only way the hypothetical directive might be altered is if the GOA and the NRA ceased to exist, or were compromised, or chose to allow alteration.

 

[Andylusion]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds. Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street. After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.

Crack down on the manufacturers. Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war. Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.

How many crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons, that are already illegal?

And has banning anything ever worked before in human history? How would you stop it? If they don't follow the law, what law are you going to put in place to stop people who don't follow the law?

Even if you outlawed the production of all weapons, how would that stop people who don't follow the laws banning the production of weapons?

How exactly do you think any of what you suggested would stop anything?

 

[westwall]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on. No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost. You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check. Done.

Most guns used by criminals, are sold on the street or by black market gun sellers. Most criminals are not driving around to garage sales, looking for guns.

In California that is true, but here in Nevada I see gangbangers at yard sales looking for guns. Our newspapers still have firearms adds in the classifieds as well. All of these avenues would benefit from a background check.

 

[Andylusion]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on. No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost. You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check. Done.

Most guns used by criminals, are sold on the street or by black market gun sellers. Most criminals are not driving around to garage sales, looking for guns.

In California that is true, but here in Nevada I see gangbangers at yard sales looking for guns. Our newspapers still have firearms adds in the classifieds as well. All of these avenues would benefit from a background check.

Well but here's the problem......

If you see a 'gangbanger', and he's buying a gun at a garage sale, and the owner knows he's a gangbanger and has no problem selling to him.... why would he bother caring about the background check?

Let's even say the owner did care. The gangbanger sends his sister, or nephew or friend who is clean as a whistle, they buy the guy, and give it to them.

Now what?

This will not stop even one single solitary gun sale. Not one.

 

[2aguy]

[...]

No you can't....no one can because we don't live forever. They just want it set up, no matter how weak and benign it is.....just get it started, because they can grow it as large as they want later....

[...]

What you obviously do not understand is the means by which laws are subject to later modification is either deliberate or negligent failure of their authors to impose simple preventive safeguards, thus leaving a "back door" open. In the example I am citing an effective safeguard may be imposed with a very simple, one sentence introductory paragraph, to read:

No change, alteration, addition, reduction, adjustment or modification to this directive may be applied or officially proposed at any time in the future, and for any reason, without full approval of the GOA and the NRA.

The only way the hypothetical directive might be altered is if the GOA and the NRA ceased to exist, or were compromised, or chose to allow alteration.

Keep dreaming...tell that to the republican politicians who told us..."Don't worry, we'll let the Supreme Court defeat obamacare."

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on. No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost. You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check. Done.

Most guns used by criminals, are sold on the street or by black market gun sellers. Most criminals are not driving around to garage sales, looking for guns.

In California that is true, but here in Nevada I see gangbangers at yard sales looking for guns. Our newspapers still have firearms adds in the classifieds as well. All of these avenues would benefit from a background check.

Well but here's the problem......

If you see a 'gangbanger', and he's buying a gun at a garage sale, and the owner knows he's a gangbanger and has no problem selling to him.... why would he bother caring about the background check?

Let's even say the owner did care. The gangbanger sends his sister, or nephew or friend who is clean as a whistle, they buy the guy, and give it to them.

Now what?

This will not stop even one single solitary gun sale. Not one.

Exactly....and you can make background checks, "universal" and "super dooper" and "extra special with sugar on top," and criminals will still get past them using someone who doesn't care about them and sells to a criminal anyway, or a person who can pass a background check will buy them the gun, or they will steal it.....just like they do now....

 

[Andylusion]

Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.

My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem? I don't think I'm suggesting anything as stupidly counterproductive as are magazine-capacity laws. All I'm suggesting is a law that says if you don't know how to handle a gun you wish to own, learn how first.

What's wrong with that?

A constitutional right, is just that. It's a right. It's not a right... unless you can't demonstrate competency.

You are basically justifying unintentionally, the black voting laws. Now I'm not suggesting you are doing this intentionally, but regardless it's the same argument....

Oh yes you have the right to vote.... yes absolutely you do.... 100% you have a constitutional right to vote..... but first you have demonstrate competency to vote. First can you read and write? No? Oh well then you can't vote, sorry.

Same argument. Oh yes you have the right to defend yourself with weapons. Absolutely! You have the right to bear arms. No question about it, you have the right to have and own a weapon.... but first you have to demonstrate competency.... Oh you can't yet? Then never mind, you can't have a gun after all.

A "right" is a "right". Not a "right unless you can't demonstrate competency".

That's what's wrong with that.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds. Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street. After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.

Crack down on the manufacturers. Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war. Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.

How many crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons, that are already illegal?

And has banning anything ever worked before in human history? How would you stop it? If they don't follow the law, what law are you going to put in place to stop people who don't follow the law?

Even if you outlawed the production of all weapons, how would that stop people who don't follow the laws banning the production of weapons?

How exactly do you think any of what you suggested would stop anything?

Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons. Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians. If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.