Sarah Brady has died

[Abatis]

Personally, I don't give a damn if it's legal to own full-auto M-16s and M-4s and AK-47s and whatever; anything in the reasonable range of a handgun or rifle of any kind.

I also have zero objection to high-capacity magazine and ammunition of every kind by the bushel-basket-full.

But I would want each and every Gun Owner to undergo a thorough vetting (criminal background check and mental health), registration, licensing, education (safety and usage and handling and transport and sale-transfer and disposition and theft protocols) and to periodically undergo re-certification much along the lines of testing to renew a drivers license.

If we can do it with our cars and boats and planes, we can do it with our guns.

And, given the extent of gun-crime and gun-centric terrorism rampant in the country at present, that's a controlled and sensible reaction and precaution for moving forward without infringing upon the rights of our citizenry to bear arms as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Rights usually carry responsibilities with them, and, sometimes, the degree and extent of responsibility must change, as the times and circumstances change and demand.

So long as we remain true to the assurance of the Right to Bear Arms in the US Constitution, a standardizing and enforcement of related responsibilities is a reasonable approach.

You have proven here you haven't the foggiest notion of what a "right" is.

 

[2aguy]

Personally, I don't give a damn if it's legal to own full-auto M-16s and M-4s and AK-47s and whatever; anything in the reasonable range of a handgun or rifle of any kind.

I also have zero objection to high-capacity magazine and ammunition of every kind by the bushel-basket-full.

But I would want each and every Gun Owner to undergo a thorough vetting (criminal background check and mental health), registration, licensing, education (safety and usage and handling and transport and sale-transfer and disposition and theft protocols) and to periodically undergo re-certification much along the lines of testing to renew a drivers license.

If we can do it with our cars and boats and planes, we can do it with our guns.

And, given the extent of gun-crime and gun-centric terrorism rampant in the country at present, that's a controlled and sensible reaction and precaution for moving forward without infringing upon the rights of our citizenry to bear arms as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Rights usually carry responsibilities with them, and, sometimes, the degree and extent of responsibility must change, as the times and circumstances change and demand.

So long as we remain true to the assurance of the Right to Bear Arms in the US Constitution, a standardizing and enforcement of related responsibilities is a reasonable approach.

So long as we remain true to the assurance of the Right to Bear Arms in the US Constitution, a standardizing and enforcement of related responsibilities is a reasonable approach

Until the gun grabbers get the political power to use registration to force a gun turn in.......so....no thank you......

 

[rightwinger]

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun. As long as you are legally entitled

Just make all gun owners responsible for their weapons. Who you sell it to and insurance if it is used improperly.

You sell a gun to a criminal or nut case.....you are an accessory

 

[2aguy]

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun. As long as you are legally entitled

Just make all gun owners responsible for their weapons. Who you sell it to and insurance if it is used improperly.

You sell a gun to a criminal or nut case.....you are an accessory

That is the law now.......so what is your problem........and insurance....well...you lefties did like poll taxes when you tried to deny blacks the right to vote...so why not stop all people from exercising their right to self defense by making it more expensive for the poor to own guns......

you lefties sure don't like freedom, do you......

 

[Abatis]

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun. As long as you are legally entitled

Just make all gun owners responsible for their weapons. Who you sell it to and insurance if it is used improperly.

You sell a gun to a criminal or nut case.....you are an accessory

Personally and politically you should try to understand that my gun ownership is beyond you purview, not subject to your approval and that the government does not possess any power to institute most of what you pine for.

 

[rightwinger]

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun. As long as you are legally entitled

Just make all gun owners responsible for their weapons. Who you sell it to and insurance if it is used improperly.

You sell a gun to a criminal or nut case.....you are an accessory

Personally and politically you should try to understand that my gun ownership is beyond you purview, not subject to your approval and that the government does not possess any power to institute most of what you pine for.

1. registration of all guns
2. Owner licensing to ensure you are legally allowed to own a gun
3. You sell one of your guns to a criminal or crazy without a proper license and you go to jail

It is what we call personal responsibility. It should apply to all gun owners

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So long as we remain true to the assurance of the Right to Bear Arms in the US Constitution, a standardizing and enforcement of related responsibilities is a reasonable approach."

Therein lies the disagreement at it's most basic. What you wish for does in fact infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and therefore does not remain true to the US Constitution. Unconstitutional.

 

[Kondor3]

...You have proven here you haven't the foggiest notion of what a "right" is.

Rubbish.

However, Rights... and most especially Rights, in matters affecting the safety and well-being of others, carry Responsibilities.

The idea of devising and implementing National Standards related to Gun Registration and Owner Licensing, etc., is nothing more than a fresh defining of the Responsibilities and Accountability that our Republic may choose to assign to those amongst us who wish to exercise that Right-Affecting-the-General-Safety.

Nothing more.

The Rights of a citizen are often accompanied by an articulation of the Responsibilities of a citizen.

Nothing more.

 

[Kondor3]

"So long as we remain true to the assurance of the Right to Bear Arms in the US Constitution, a standardizing and enforcement of related responsibilities is a reasonable approach."

Therein lies the disagreement at it's most basic. What you wish for does in fact infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and therefore does not remain true to the US Constitution. Unconstitutional.

How does it infringe?

It merely defines and articulates and enforces the Responsibilities which The People have decided must accompany the exercise of such a Right.

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document, and is neither a Suicide Pact nor a Dead End.

There exists no Constitutional barrier to Firearms Registration nor Licensing of Gun Owners.

 

[Kondor3]

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun. As long as you are legally entitled

Just make all gun owners responsible for their weapons. Who you sell it to and insurance if it is used improperly.

You sell a gun to a criminal or nut case.....you are an accessory

Personally and politically you should try to understand that my gun ownership is beyond you purview, not subject to your approval and that the government does not possess any power to institute most of what you pine for.

Incorrect.

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

 

[Kondor3]

...Until the gun grabbers get the political power to use registration to force a gun turn in.......so....no thank you......

Rise to the challenge and take-on the Responsibility and Accountability which The People may deem fit for you to assume in order to exercise that Right involving a mortally dangerous subject matter, and you will defuse the arguments that Gun Grabbers would most likely attempt to use, should you refuse to address Responsibility and Accountability to the satisfaction of The People at large.

 

[Abatis]

1. registration of all guns

The federal government used to have a narrow interest in the types and caliber of a gun that a citizen owned. That narrow interest was focused on the gun (singular) that a man enrolled in the state militia furnished for himself to fulfill his militia obligation. The type and caliber of gun would be recorded so the militia company could procure ammunition for its members to use during muster, training or deployment.

This was a type of registration, (more of a general census), and was called a "Return of Militia". Whatever this "registration" was, it excluded citizens not enrolled and is moot today. The federal government's authority to demand any list of gun owners and their arms ended early in the 20th Century with the Dick Act and the extinguishment of the Militia Act.

2. Owner licensing to ensure you are legally allowed to own a gun

SCOTUS has frowned upon requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right and downright detested licensing a fundamental right.

3. You sell one of your guns to a criminal or crazy without a proper license and you go to jail

There is no "proper license" to sell to "a criminal or crazy"; see US Code 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.​

It is what we call personal responsibility. It should apply to all gun owners

Your ideas are generally a garden of fantasy that anti-liberty people dwell in, steeped in the manure of constitutional and legal ignorance governed only by emotionalism and logical fallacy. Logic and knowledge are considered weeds to be eradicated.

 

[rightwinger]

1. registration of all guns

The federal government used to have a narrow interest in the types and caliber of a gun that a citizen owned. That narrow interest was focused on the gun (singular) that a man enrolled in the state militia furnished for himself to fulfill his militia obligation. The type and caliber of gun would be recorded so the militia company could procure ammunition for its members to use during muster, training or deployment.

This was a type of registration, (more of a general census), and was called a "Return of Militia". Whatever this "registration" was, it excluded citizens not enrolled and is moot today. The federal government's authority to demand any list of gun owners and their arms ended early in the 20th Century with the Dick Act and the extinguishment of the Militia Act.

2. Owner licensing to ensure you are legally allowed to own a gun

SCOTUS has frowned upon requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right and downright detested licensing a fundamental right.

3. You sell one of your guns to a criminal or crazy without a proper license and you go to jail

There is no "proper license" to sell to "a criminal or crazy"; see US Code 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.​

It is what we call personal responsibility. It should apply to all gun owners

Your ideas are generally a garden of fantasy that anti-liberty people dwell in, steeped in the manure of constitutional and legal ignorance governed only by emotionalism and logical fallacy. Logic and knowledge are considered weeds to be eradicated.

What are you afraid of?

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you. Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

 

[Abatis]

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).

So, ANY law upheld citing US v Tot or Cases v US or their illegitimate children, will certainly fall.

And yes, that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

 

[Abatis]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

 

[Abatis]

...You have proven here you haven't the foggiest notion of what a "right" is.

Rubbish.

However, Rights... and most especially Rights, in matters affecting the safety and well-being of others, carry Responsibilities.

The idea of devising and implementing National Standards related to Gun Registration and Owner Licensing, etc., is nothing more than a fresh defining of the Responsibilities and Accountability that our Republic may choose to assign to those amongst us who wish to exercise that Right-Affecting-the-General-Safety.

Nothing more.

The Rights of a citizen are often accompanied by an articulation of the Responsibilities of a citizen.

Nothing more.

I missed this earlier because you mis-quoted . . .

You capitalize "National Standards" and "Gun Registration and Owner Licensing, etc.," as if they are government powers that exist. What you fail to understand is that the government cannot grant itself new powers to freshly define "the Responsibilities and Accountability" of citizens.

A SCOTUS decision that you wouldn't care about even if I cited it said:

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

 

[rightwinger]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

 

[Conservative65]

They don't care about gun crime....you can tell this is true because nothing they propose would actually deal with actual gun crime.....they care about guns.....that is why everything they propose is directed at gun ownership and not gun crime......

Guns don't kill people....people with guns kill people

No, people with guns don't kill people.....criminals with guns kill people......

Criminals with guns kill people.

Paranoids with guns kill people.

Psychotics with guns kill people.

Sociopaths with guns kill people.

Jealous husbands and wives with guns kill people.

Children playing with guns kill people.

And on and on and on.

National Standards for gun registration and licensure and sale and transfer and transport and disposal and education and training are a necessary step forward and an idea whose time has come.

Might as well play King Canute trying to sweep back the sea with a broom.

It's coming.

The question is, whether you (Gun Owners) have the sense to get out in front of it, to have a considerable input into and impact upon the dialogue, and the outcome.

In the long run, you can't stop it from happening, but you can have one helluva strong voice in how it looks when the dust settles.

Your choice.

All of those things can be said of baseball bats, knives and treelimbs.

Yet, two thirds of our murders are from guns......not baseball bats, knives or tree limbs

So someone killed by a bat, knife, or tree limb is less dead than someone killed by a gun?

 

[Abatis]

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can

What part of the post you quoted (or anything I have said) makes you think you need to rebut me with this?

Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

Are you just trying to prove me correct? That all you have is disjointed, disconnected blurts of idiocy in response to reason and facts?

 

[Kondor3]

...SCOTUS has frowned upon requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right and downright detested licensing a fundamental right...

Understandable.

Does this hold true in the narrow and specific context of Gun Ownership?

And, if so, how does this square with the various State -level firearms registration and gun-owner licensing laws that have withstood such legal challenges?

Personally, I'm at a loss to explain how both states of affairs can simultaneously exist, but that's just me.