Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[Kondor3]

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

You mean except for Britain, Australia, Canada, Sweden.....

The CNN townhall, the D.C. marchers, and the anti gun justices on the Supreme Court have pulled of the mask.....sorry, you can't lie anymore.


And gun crime is going up in Europe and Australia..it is going down here....

Nothing you posted is even remotely accurate or true.....must be nice ....

The U.S., 600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Britain...banned guns....

Yorkshire sees highest number of crimes for any county in Britain according to figures

“In particular we’re shocked to see an increase of nearly 30 per cent in weapon possession offences between 2016 and 2017.”

Crimes covered violent and sexual offences, vehicle theft, public order offences, possession of weapons, shoplifting, personal theft, drug crimes, robbery, criminal damage, bicycle thefts and anti-social behaviour.


========

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .


========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

Doesn't matter.

We'll do it different and better, here.

 

[Kondor3]

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

Nothing you posted is even true or accurate......

Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Globally



Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

1. United States at 20,967,
2. Uruguay at 3,777,
3. Norway at 55,893,
4. France at 19,747,
5. Austria at 59,608,
6. Germany at 35,647,
7. Switzerland at 35,435,
8. New Zealand at 24,835, and
9. Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

1. El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
2. Honduras (63.75/6200)
3. Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
4. Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
5. Lesotho (38/2,700)
6. Belize (34.4/10,000)
7. South Africa (34.27/12,700)
8. Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
9. Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
10. Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data.

The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

-------

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in a murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun than in America.

You, too, will continue to own guns, if you like.

It's just that you'll need a background check and a license and you'll need to register your guns and attend mandatory trainings and pass basic competency tests and you'll need to periodically re-certify... similar to the level of responsibility and accountability we ask of automobile drivers.

 

[Kondor3]

...Repeating the same propaganda over and over doesn't make it true...

Indeed. You(r side) are strongly encouraged to reflect upon that maxim.

...the right of the "people" to keep and carry firearms is unrelated to militia service...

That is one interpretation of the Second Amendment.

There is another, and that may very well become the operative one, in the not too distant future.

...The right to self defense with equal or greater firepower than what a bad guy might have, is unrelated to militia service...

You digress from the nature of the Right conferred and confirmed in the text of the Second Amendment. No comment.

...Sucks to be you I guess..

Au contraire... I have no particular dog in this fight... other than to side with a rapidly growing majority of Americans in favor of sensible nationwide gun controls.

 

[Montrovant]

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

Nothing you posted is even true or accurate......

Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Globally



Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

1. United States at 20,967,
2. Uruguay at 3,777,
3. Norway at 55,893,
4. France at 19,747,
5. Austria at 59,608,
6. Germany at 35,647,
7. Switzerland at 35,435,
8. New Zealand at 24,835, and
9. Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

1. El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
2. Honduras (63.75/6200)
3. Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
4. Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
5. Lesotho (38/2,700)
6. Belize (34.4/10,000)
7. South Africa (34.27/12,700)
8. Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
9. Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
10. Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data.

The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

-------

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in a murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun than in America.

You, too, will continue to own guns, if you like.

It's just that you'll need a background check and a license and you'll need to register your guns and attend mandatory trainings and pass basic competency tests and you'll need to periodically re-certify... similar to the level of responsibility and accountability we ask of automobile drivers.

Sure...assuming a fairly radical shift in Supreme Court rulings or a new Constitutional amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

...Repeating the same propaganda over and over doesn't make it true...

Indeed. You(r side) are strongly encouraged to reflect upon that maxim.

...the right of the "people" to keep and carry firearms is unrelated to militia service...

That is one interpretation of the Second Amendment.

There is another, and that may very well become the operative one, in the not too distant future.

...The right to self defense with equal or greater firepower than what a bad guy might have, is unrelated to militia service...

You digress from the nature of the Right conferred and confirmed in the text of the Second Amendment. No comment.

...Sucks to be you I guess..

Au contraire... I have no particular dog in this fight... other than to side with a rapidly growing majority of Americans in favor of sensible nationwide gun controls.

Actually the right of self defense is a natural right no fucking stateist government can grant it or take it away. I think you're overestimating your commie influence on the masses.


.

 

[Kondor3]

...Sure...assuming a fairly radical shift in Supreme Court rulings or a new Constitutional amendment.

Of the two, a fairly radical shift in the Supreme Court seems most likely, but, that may very well not even be necessary.

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually the right of self defense is a natural right no fucking stateist government can grant it or take it away...

Sure. No problem. You have the right to defend yourself. Absolutely. With bare knuckles or a Louisville Slugger, after the worst of the Left Wingers manage to grab your guns, simply because you failed to connect with mid-liners on the other side and reach live-able compromises while you still had the leverage. You're wasting time. But... what the hell... your choice.

...I think you're overestimating your commie influence on the masses. .

Advocacy for sensible nationwide gun control standards and the imposing of common-sense responsibilities and accountability upon the owners of lethal weapons does not equate with communism, no matter how many myopic one-trick-pony right-wing bumper-sticker-mentality faux objections come bubbling out of the woodwork.

 

[Montrovant]

...Sure...assuming a fairly radical shift in Supreme Court rulings or a new Constitutional amendment.

Of the two, a fairly radical shift in the Supreme Court seems most likely, but, that may very well not even be necessary.

Why not? Do you expect the court to accept all of the various restrictions you listed?

 

[OKTexas]

...Actually the right of self defense is a natural right no fucking stateist government can grant it or take it away...

Sure. No problem. You have the right to defend yourself. Absolutely. With bare knuckles or a Louisville Slugger, after the worst of the Left Wingers manage to grab your guns, simply because you failed to connect with mid-liners on the other side and reach live-able compromises while you still had the leverage. You're wasting time. But... what the hell... your choice.

...I think you're overestimating your commie influence on the masses. .

Advocacy for sensible nationwide gun control standards and the imposing of common-sense responsibilities and accountability upon the owners of lethal weapons does not equate with communism, no matter how many myopic one-trick-pony right-wing bumper-sticker-mentality faux objections come bubbling out of the woodwork.

Who the fuck appointed you commie MFs the abaters of sensible? You broke dick MFs in IL should be getting your own house in order before you try to preach to the rest of the country.


.

 

[BlackSand]

Sure. No problem. You have the right to defend yourself. Absolutely. With bare knuckles or a Louisville Slugger, after the worst of the Left Wingers manage to grab your guns, simply because you failed to connect with mid-liners on the other side and reach live-able compromises while you still had the leverage. You're wasting time. But... what the hell... your choice.

You must offer something of worth to a compromise ...
Those opposed to firearms rights are not offering anything but a list of demands.

If the choice is to acquiesce to your demands absent any compromise ... Go pound sand.

.

 

[eflatminor]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

So, you want firearms regulated like cars? Well, that means a few things:
1) The Federal government has zero involvement in licensing drivers; and
2) You don't have to have a driver's license nor insurance to purchase or operate a car on private property.

So, in your scenario, states would regulate firearms and the federal government would stay out of it. Machine guns are now legal at the federal level. There would be no need to obtain a state license if you're purchasing a firearm for use on private property, but you may need to undertake training and get a license if you want to carry a firearm in public, it's up to the state.

Deal!

Cars require licensed if “used” on taxpayer funded roads. No need if “carried”

Should guns be licensed if only “used” at taxpayer funded shooting ranges. No need if “carried”?

No, but states do require a license to carry a firearm in public, just like they require a driver's license to drive on a public road. No such requirement exists on private property, firearm or vehicle. So no, not ONLY at taxpayer funded facilities, but any public area.

Of course, I think all of this is nonsense. What part of "shall not be infringed" is vague here? One SHOULD be able to carry wherever they want whatever they want as long as you're not infringing on the rights of another. That SHOULD apply to any public property and any private property unless restricted by that property's rightful owner. It really SHOULD be that simple.

 

[Pop23]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

So, you want firearms regulated like cars? Well, that means a few things:
1) The Federal government has zero involvement in licensing drivers; and
2) You don't have to have a driver's license nor insurance to purchase or operate a car on private property.

So, in your scenario, states would regulate firearms and the federal government would stay out of it. Machine guns are now legal at the federal level. There would be no need to obtain a state license if you're purchasing a firearm for use on private property, but you may need to undertake training and get a license if you want to carry a firearm in public, it's up to the state.

Deal!

Cars require licensed if “used” on taxpayer funded roads. No need if “carried”

Should guns be licensed if only “used” at taxpayer funded shooting ranges. No need if “carried”?

No, but states do require a license to carry a firearm in public, just like they require a driver's license to drive on a public road. No such requirement exists on private property, firearm or vehicle. So no, not ONLY at taxpayer funded facilities, but any public area.

Of course, I think all of this is nonsense. What part of "shall not be infringed" is vague here? One SHOULD be able to carry wherever they want whatever they want as long as you're not infringing on the rights of another. That SHOULD apply to any public property and any private property unless restricted by that property's rightful owner. It really SHOULD be that simple.

Government regulations to drive a car ONLY apply when the car is driven on tax payer funded roads, so if the left want guns as regulated as cars, then those regulations should ONLY apply if a gun is used at a taxpayer funded shooting range.

You can carry a car, on a taxpayer funded road, trailer it, and those regulations do not apply. A gun carried on that road should have the same duty. None

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Think about what you’re really saying when you suggest, “I just want people who own guns to know what they’re doing”. It sounds so innocent and reasonable, and I believe you mean it that way, but what you’re actually saying is;

“I just want other people to do what I think they should do - undergo firearm training before owning a gun - and if they try to own a gun without submitting to my idea, I want them to be robbed via a fine, and/or to have armed men take their gun away. If they won’t hand it over willingly, I want them dragged off to a cage, and if they resist going to the cage, I want them violently beaten, and murdered if need be, for not doing what I believe they should do.”

That is exactly what you mean when you say you “just” want people to know with their doing. Do you see the euphemistic thinking here? We’ve been fed the immoral and illogical idea that this behavior is acceptable if done by proxy through “legal” channels, when we would be mortified at the thought of doing these things ourselves.

I don’t believe this is in alignment with your morality, considering that you seem to care about people and want them to be safe. If you think it’s wrong for you personally to enforce your “mandatory” standard under threat of violence, please don’t ask others to do it. Morality doesn’t change just because the person performing the action is wearing a badge.

 

[Kondor3]

Sure. No problem. You have the right to defend yourself. Absolutely. With bare knuckles or a Louisville Slugger, after the worst of the Left Wingers manage to grab your guns, simply because you failed to connect with mid-liners on the other side and reach live-able compromises while you still had the leverage. You're wasting time. But... what the hell... your choice.

You must offer something of worth to a compromise ... Those opposed to firearms rights are not offering anything but a list of demands. If the choice is to acquiesce to your demands absent any compromise ... Go pound sand. .

The compromise is that you get to keep your guns; despite what the worst of the Snowflake Crowd want.

In truth, there are three (3) kinds of Gun Control Advocates:

1. Centrists - who believe that much more is needed, but who also believe in the Right to Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment

2. Extremists - who want to take all your guns away or severely curtail ownership, so that the Lions and the Lambs will all lie down together in peace

3. Fence Sitters - the Sheeple who want something done, but who haven't bothered to think it through, and who will Follow The Leader

Personally, I identify with (1), and there are considerable numbers of us out there.

The true Gun Grabbers gather under (2); there are large numbers of these as well, but they are also the most vocal and visible.

The vast majority of Americans who lean towards Gun Control fall under (3) - clueless, they lean on the leadership of others

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

You(r side) needs to be dealing with (1) to hammer out a real and effective and comprehensive solution that (1) and (3) can live with.

Do that, and (2) becomes isolated and will no longer be getting all the oxygen in the room and will eventually fade into oblivion.

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

Your (side's) trouble is that you believe you're un-touchable in this context and that (2) will never attain their goals.

Fail to reach a substantive and comprehensive solution to vetting, licensing, registration, transactions and upkeep, and they probably will attain those goals.

You really don't think that Right -leaning control of the House and Senate and Oval Office and SCOTUS are going to last forever, do you?

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

Every political cycle, the clamor for effective nationwide Gun Control grows louder, and the Public Opinion noose tightens around you(r side) and the NRA.

Long term, your choices are (a) effective nationwide gun control or (b) bans and seizures when Public Opinion finally swings far enough to let them get away with it.

Every time we see another bloody slaughter of little children you(r side) counters with the same tired old shopworn defenses and propaganda, and a new viciousness.

Those are no longer working to deflect Public Opinion anywhere near as well as they did in times past, and your problem gets worse with each slaughter of innocents.

Far better and more sensible to concede the matter of nationwide standards and controlling law, and take the wind out of the sails of (2), before your position disintegrates.

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

Crafted intelligently, comprehensive nationwide gun control can preserve our rights while guaranteeing that this is the end of it; that the (2)'s can't take it any further.

Without an attainable mission objective, the (2)'s lose momentum and cohesion, their ranks thin, and they dissipate into the wind.

But only if you(r side) has the sense God gave a pi$$ant, to act while you still have some considerable political power to bring to bear on the topic, because that's slipping.

You don't have as much time as you think you do... the less rabid amongst you need to have a Come-to-Jesus-Moment and get crackin' on a solution.

You're wasting time.

 

[2aguy]

Sure. No problem. You have the right to defend yourself. Absolutely. With bare knuckles or a Louisville Slugger, after the worst of the Left Wingers manage to grab your guns, simply because you failed to connect with mid-liners on the other side and reach live-able compromises while you still had the leverage. You're wasting time. But... what the hell... your choice.

You must offer something of worth to a compromise ... Those opposed to firearms rights are not offering anything but a list of demands. If the choice is to acquiesce to your demands absent any compromise ... Go pound sand. .

The compromise is that you get to keep your guns; despite what the worst of the Snowflake Crowd want.

In truth, there are three (3) kinds of Gun Control Advocates:

1. Centrists - who believe that much more is needed, but who also believe in the Right to Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment

2. Extremists - who want to take all your guns away or severely curtail ownership, so that the Lions and the Lambs will all lie down together in peace

3. Fence Sitters - the Sheeple who want something done, but who haven't bothered to think it through, and who will Follow The Leader

Personally, I identify with (1), and there are considerable numbers of us out there.

The true Gun Grabbers gather under (2); there are large numbers of these as well, but they are also the most vocal and visible.

The vast majority of Americans who lean towards Gun Control fall under (3) - clueless, they lean on the leadership of others

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

You(r side) needs to be dealing with (1) to hammer out a real and effective and comprehensive solution that (1) and (3) can live with.

Do that, and (2) becomes isolated and will no longer be getting all the oxygen in the room and will eventually fade into oblivion.

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

Your (side's) trouble is that you believe you're un-touchable in this context and that (2) will never attain their goals.

Fail to reach a substantive and comprehensive solution to vetting, licensing, registration, transactions and upkeep, and they probably will attain those goals.

You really don't think that Right -leaning control of the House and Senate and Oval Office and SCOTUS are going to last forever, do you?

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

Every political cycle, the clamor for effective nationwide Gun Control grows louder, and the Public Opinion noose tightens around you(r side) and the NRA.

Long term, your choices are (a) effective nationwide gun control or (b) bans and seizures when Public Opinion finally swings far enough to let them get away with it.

Every time we see another bloody slaughter of little children you(r side) counters with the same tired old shopworn defenses and propaganda, and a new viciousness.

Those are no longer working to deflect Public Opinion anywhere near as well as they did in times past, and your problem gets worse with each slaughter of innocents.

Far better and more sensible to concede the matter of nationwide standards and controlling law, and take the wind out of the sails of (2), before your position disintegrates.

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

Crafted intelligently, comprehensive nationwide gun control can preserve our rights while guaranteeing that this is the end of it; that the (2)'s can't take it any further.

Without an attainable mission objective, the (2)'s lose momentum and cohesion, their ranks thin, and they dissipate into the wind.

But only if you(r side) has the sense God gave a pi$$ant, to act while you still have some considerable political power to bring to bear on the topic, because that's slipping.

You don't have as much time as you think you do... the less rabid amongst you need to have a Come-to-Jesus-Moment and get crackin' on a solution.

You're wasting time.

And you are wrong.....the anti gun extremists want all guns....every single one. They will settle for one gun, one piece of equipment, one bullet or magazine at a time, but they will not stop until they get them all.....

They are using the courts, the local and state anti gun legislatures...and they will not stop....

You are either dishonest or naive, likely both.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Could you direct me to the occasion when anyone asked you to dictate and approve what they "need"?

Second Amendment.

You are a member of the militia at-large.... the militia of last resort in defense of the Republic... the citizenry.

The People will merely 'regulate' that 'militia' 'well', as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next batter, please.

Yeah, uh, declaring the subject settled and closed merely because you spewed your half-assed, delusional viewpoint ain't gonna fly, Chuckles. I realize the only way you can ever win an argument is to prevent others from ever getting to speak, but that's really not my problem.

First of all, Stalin Jr., if you want to start handing down pronouncements about what people "need" and "what's required" and who's a member of what, you're gonna have to stage a coup and declare yourself Dictator-For-Life, and you don't REMOTELY have the charisma needed to pull that off.

So your second option is to climb down off your makeshift throne on Shit Mountain, King Turd, and start convincing, cajoling, and begging people to agree with your twaddle, because you're going to have to either amend the Constitution to say what you erroneously think it says now, OR you're going to have to do the usual leftist two-step and get the Supreme Court to pretend it says something different than it does. Unfortunately for your fantasy of Leftist Utopiastan, that's gonna require some personnel changes, which is going to require the people to elect some new representatives.

Rather than prancing around here, pompously issuing directives about "you will accept my vision and fall into line with what I want", you need to get your ass out and start campaigning for what you want. You won't get it through confrontation because, as I keep pointing out, WE are armed and you aren't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Bullshit......who are you to tell me how many I can have

The People, who will 'regulate' the "militia' (at-large) 'well' , as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next slide, please.

That's how you interpret it, but it reads.......

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That does not say a limit on how many guns I can 'keep & bear' and neither does 'well regulated'

'well regulated' means what The People want it to mean, through the endeavors of their Legislative branch, and what the Judicial branch allows.

We'll let you know what that means at the voting booth, as Americans start sniffing around for NRA contributions to Congressional and Senatorial campaigns.

Change is coming.

Nice try, dipshit, but YOU are not "the people", and no matter how much you try to tell yourself that the populace is marching in step with you, the truth is that the instant you open your fat, flapping gob, people can't run away from you fast enough.

So you just take your ragtag bunch of obnoxious chickenshits to the voting booth - which would be a refreshing change from the usual leftist scheme of "force it on people and then tell them how much they love it" - and we'll see what happens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Think about what you’re really saying when you suggest, “I just want people who own guns to know what they’re doing”. It sounds so innocent and reasonable, and I believe you mean it that way, but what you’re actually saying is;

“I just want other people to do what I think they should do - undergo firearm training before owning a gun - and if they try to own a gun without submitting to my idea, I want them to be robbed via a fine, and/or to have armed men take their gun away. If they won’t hand it over willingly, I want them dragged off to a cage, and if they resist going to the cage, I want them violently beaten, and murdered if need be, for not doing what I believe they should do.”

That is exactly what you mean when you say you “just” want people to know with their doing. Do you see the euphemistic thinking here? We’ve been fed the immoral and illogical idea that this behavior is acceptable if done by proxy through “legal” channels, when we would be mortified at the thought of doing these things ourselves.

I don’t believe this is in alignment with your morality, considering that you seem to care about people and want them to be safe. If you think it’s wrong for you personally to enforce your “mandatory” standard under threat of violence, please don’t ask others to do it. Morality doesn’t change just because the person performing the action is wearing a badge.

Don't forget that part where he's basically saying, "I believe you're all careless, reckless imbeciles who OBVIOUSLY aren't doing the right thing without coercion."

 

[DrLove]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Well I'll be damned - First time I've ever agreed with you about anything!

 

[DrLove]

That would be an infringement

Why?