Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Maybe gun licenses should be like drivers licenses...


Down here we have a 3 step license program to get your license.
first you have to pass a 35 question safty test on the rules and regulations. You are allowed 2 wrong, before you auto fail. then you have to spend 6 months supervised the whole time you are driving around by someone who has had their full for at least 3 years and is over 20. then you have a hour long practical in a high stress area, and 3 minor or 1 major mistake is a fail. this leaves you at the second level,called restricted where you have two choices: wait the whole time (18 months) and try the second practical, which is longer and harder then the first pract, or take a defensive skills course, and wait a year.


something similar could be done with gun ownership surely? So level 1's might only be allowed firing privileges on ranges, level 2's supervised outside firing, level 3 full control, no restrictions.

that work for people?

Liscence to hunt in relatively populated areas like Illinois and Wisconsin or to carry concealed weapons, perhaps such a strict testing system would work. The Second Ammendment is pretty clear about the right to bear arms not being infringed upon.

So, to a large extent whether people agree on limitations is moot. The right to bear arms is a civil right. Many of us here believe that it is better to grant new rights than to take existing ones away. Once our liberties begin to be stripped, it becomes difficult to stop and impossible to reverse.

Its not supposed to be a limitation, its supposed to make sure you know all the safety rules, know how to handle it, and gives time for checks on criminal record/mental health etc. Its to prove you are a responsible gun owner, and to help make sure that those who havent had much training get training so that there are less accidental deaths from idiocy when around guns.

Spacekiwi wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Liscence to hunt in relatively populated areas like Illinois and Wisconsin or to carry concealed weapons, perhaps such a strict testing system would work. The Second Ammendment is pretty clear about the right to bear arms not being infringed upon.

So, to a large extent whether people agree on limitations is moot. The right to bear arms is a civil right. Many of us here believe that it is better to grant new rights than to take existing ones away. Once our liberties begin to be stripped, it becomes difficult to stop and impossible to reverse.

Its not supposed to be a limitation, its supposed to make sure you know all the safety rules, know how to handle it, and gives time for checks on criminal record/mental health etc. Its to prove you are a responsible gun owner, and to help make sure that those who havent had much training get training so that there are less accidental deaths from idiocy when around guns.

Again ensure the user is knowledgeable of saftey rules for a specified use is one ting, but the right to own a gun cannot be restricted short of repealing this Ammendment. The wording suggests that the right to bear arms leads to a well regulated militia and so precedes such a body. The militia may be regulated but not the right to bear arms. It follows that some other uses might be regulated but not the ability to own firearms.

The Second Ammendment to the US Constitution
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.

As a gun owner and hunter, I agree with PeterZ on the meaning of the Second Amendment and it's purpose. Having said that, there is some rational to tighter checks on who may purchase and own guns. My problem with all of the currently proposed legislation I have read about is quite simple. It was proposed, drafted and amended by a bunch of idiotic, short-sighted ignorant p***-ant expletive deleted morons. Inaccurate definitions, irreversible actions and an inability to protest against arbitrary decisions are a hall-mark of current efforts.

Everyone screams about "assault weapons". There has been an effective, comprehensive enforceable law on the books since 1967. It works. It is just that nobody will bring that fact up during a debate, on either side. I am not sure of the exact title of the law, but it covers all automatic weapons, period. Anywhere in the US, any time they are found, by any law enforcement agency without regard to purpose.

While I do believe tighter background checks are in order, I would not approve any of the measures I have heard of so far. If a person is placed on the list, as they are currently proposing, there is no way to get off of it, even if they are placed there erroneously. Or if they are placed on the list for a temporary condition, such as depression. Their all or nothing approach is killing any chance of compromise.

I agree with you on the definitions. I do not agree with a national regestry of gun owners. Some have suggested that such a registry would be combined with a can't own list. Doing checks to make sure people are not have mental issues or criminal issues is one thing. Maintaining a list of owners and those who can't is another.

Such a thing is too easy to abuse. Recall the reporters "outing" legal gun owners names and addresses after Sandy Hook. IIRC, some of those names were of women trying to hide from abusive ex's. They were armed because they feared the SOBs might find them.

Better to check each name as though it were a unique action made by someone who is purchasing for the first time. Checking each person thoroughly, but once approved or rejected the name is forgotten. Since a person's status may change between checks, each check should be unique and complete.

KNick wrote:As a gun owner and hunter, I agree with PeterZ on the meaning of the Second Amendment and it's purpose. Having said that, there is some rational to tighter checks on who may purchase and own guns. My problem with all of the currently proposed legislation I have read about is quite simple. It was proposed, drafted and amended by a bunch of idiotic, short-sighted ignorant p***-ant expletive deleted morons. Inaccurate definitions, irreversible actions and an inability to protest against arbitrary decisions are a hall-mark of current efforts.

Everyone screams about "assault weapons". There has been an effective, comprehensive enforceable law on the books since 1967. It works. It is just that nobody will bring that fact up during a debate, on either side. I am not sure of the exact title of the law, but it covers all automatic weapons, period. Anywhere in the US, any time they are found, by any law enforcement agency without regard to purpose.

While I do believe tighter background checks are in order, I would not approve any of the measures I have heard of so far. If a person is placed on the list, as they are currently proposing, there is no way to get off of it, even if they are placed there erroneously. Or if they are placed on the list for a temporary condition, such as depression. Their all or nothing approach is killing any chance of compromise.

PeterZ wrote:Again ensure the user is knowledgeable of saftey rules for a specified use is one thing, but the right to own a gun cannot be restricted short of repealing this Ammendment. The wording suggests that the right to bear arms leads to a well regulated militia and so precedes such a body. The militia may be regulated but not the right to bear arms. It follows that some other uses might be regulated but not the ability to own firearms.

The Second Ammendment to the US Constitution
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.

Have a safety course as a requirement to getting a gun license maybe, or when buying a gun. its not to prevent people getting guns, its to ensure those who do have training and skills. or maybe to own certain types of guns you need to have passed a certain level of it. its not preventing you owning guns, merely improving the issuing process in such a way as to allow a better idea of how competent people are with guns.

Who determines competency?

Require gun safety be taught in school to everyone. We have enough other silly things that must be taught. One more shouldn't be all that hard.

Anything else is an infringement.

The amendment says nothing about whether you can use it well or not. Trust me on this as someone who was required to carry one on watch and was responsible for others that carried them some of those people scared me. We had a qualification process, it wasn't perfect.

Check to see if "Due Process" has already removed your right to own one, I can support that. Which can and has been abused. And I am sure will be abused in the future. But at least make a court do it.

Then hold each person responsible for what they do. If you don't want people to act like spoiled children then stop treating them like children.

Enjoy,
T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:Have a safety course as a requirement to getting a gun license maybe, or when buying a gun. its not to prevent people getting guns, its to ensure those who do have training and skills. or maybe to own certain types of guns you need to have passed a certain level of it. its not preventing you owning guns, merely improving the issuing process in such a way as to allow a better idea of how competent people are with guns.

KNick wrote:While I do believe tighter background checks are in order, I would not approve any of the measures I have heard of so far. If a person is placed on the list, as they are currently proposing, there is no way to get off of it, even if they are placed there erroneously. Or if they are placed on the list for a temporary condition, such as depression. Their all or nothing approach is killing any chance of compromise.

Both sides of the shouting match (debate) have so hardened their positions that they have no room to budge to accomplish anything. Now that neither side is listening to the other, nothing will get done. The politics of gun control has come to match the politics of each party, rather than the politics of the needs of the American people. Knee jerk reactions based of party lines do nothing to help and do a whole lot to hurt. Instead, Washington needs to step back from this issue, listen to all the people, not just the ones they agree with and act like responsible adults. The necessity to do something has come and gone.

One of the reasons harsher and harsher laws do not work should be apparent to law makers. As the law makes less sense to the individual, the likelihood that they will ignore it goes up. Spend the time to make sure that any law that is passed is actually a good law that does what it was intended to do. Then make sure that the law has consequences and that judges will impose them.

Yes, teach it in schools along with the fundamentals of personal financial management and planning. The first for the obvious the second because few people seem to understand it. I think they both fall under the idea that k-12 schooling is supposed to give you the knowledge and skills to live a reasonable good life, not just to pass some test.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Who determines competency?

Require gun safety be taught in school to everyone. We have enough other silly things that must be taught. One more shouldn't be all that hard.

Anything else is an infringement.

The amendment says nothing about whether you can use it well or not. Trust me on this as someone who was required to carry one on watch and was responsible for others that carried them some of those people scared me. We had a qualification process, it wasn't perfect.

Check to see if "Due Process" has already removed your right to own one, I can support that. Which can and has been abused. And I am sure will be abused in the future. But at least make a court do it.

Then hold each person responsible for what they do. If you don't want people to act like spoiled children then stop treating them like children.

Enjoy,
T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:Have a safety course as a requirement to getting a gun license maybe, or when buying a gun. its not to prevent people getting guns, its to ensure those who do have training and skills. or maybe to own certain types of guns you need to have passed a certain level of it. its not preventing you owning guns, merely improving the issuing process in such a way as to allow a better idea of how competent people are with guns.

I know a lot of advid gun people who agree with that idea in theory but are really concerned about how it would work -both now and in the future- and the precedent that it would create. The US legal system is like most Commonwealth nations, common law which means law is based on precedence as much as the letter of the law
.

Spacekiwi wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Again ensure the user is knowledgeable of saftey rules for a specified use is one thing, but the right to own a gun cannot be restricted short of repealing this Ammendment. The wording suggests that the right to bear arms leads to a well regulated militia and so precedes such a body. The militia may be regulated but not the right to bear arms. It follows that some other uses might be regulated but not the ability to own firearms.

The Second Ammendment to the US Constitution
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.

Have a safety course as a requirement to getting a gun license maybe, or when buying a gun. its not to prevent people getting guns, its to ensure those who do have training and skills. or maybe to own certain types of guns you need to have passed a certain level of it. its not preventing you owning guns, merely improving the issuing process in such a way as to allow a better idea of how competent people are with guns.

As I was reading Donnachaidhs post I came to the realization that the disconnect between Americans and citizens of the British Empire (of all stripes) is actually quite simple. They all expect their local Parliament to do their job and try to get things right, or if they can't figure out what is right, to do nothing. The US is rapidly coming to a consensus that Congress can not do anything right. If they can't figure out what to do, they will do what whoever screams the loudest or pays the most money wants them to do. They no longer listen to what the majority wants or thinks or, for that matter, explicitly tells them to do. In other words, we no longer trust "the government", just as we stopped trusting King George around 1770-73.